ADT Security Services CC v Brink (A55/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 571 (11 August 2015)

ADT Security Services CC v Brink (A55/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 571 (11 August 2015)

The court found that, on a balance of probabilities, the defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to monitor the premises and raise the alarm during the theft. The evidence showed that the theft involved significant noise and activity, which would have alerted a guard who was properly monitoring the site. The defendant's alternative explanations were improbable given the circumstances. Clause 9 of the agreement did not exclude liability for breach of contract but merely stated that the security service was complementary to insurance and did not provide indemnity. Therefore, the defendant was liable for damages resulting from the breach, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 571
Parties
Appellant: ADT Security Services CC; Respondent: Frederik Johannes Anton Brink
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2015
Case Number
A55/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against appellant.
Judges
NB Tuchten, S Magardie
Legal Topics
Contractual Breach, Security Services Agreement, Damages for Breach, Exclusion of Liability Clause
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Breach Security Services Agreement Damages for Breach Exclusion of Liability Clause

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADT Security Services CC

Appellant

Frederik Johannes Anton Brink

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached its contractual obligation to monitor the premises and raise the alarm during the theft.
  2. 2 Whether clause 9 of the agreement excluded liability for damages for breach of contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on a balance of probabilities, the defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to monitor the premises and raise the alarm during the theft. The evidence showed that the theft involved significant noise and activity, which would have alerted a guard who was properly monitoring the site. The defendant's alternative explanations were improbable given the circumstances. Clause 9 of the agreement did not exclude liability for breach of contract but merely stated that the security service was complementary to insurance and did not provide indemnity. Therefore, the defendant was liable for damages resulting from the breach, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against appellant.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.