Bader and Others v Wentzel and Another (57810/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 17 (29 January 2014)

Bader and Others v Wentzel and Another (57810/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 17 (29 January 2014)

The court found that the second defendant, acting as financial adviser, either negligently failed to ascertain the true nature of CMM's investment policy or knew it but failed to inform the plaintiffs. This constituted a breach of the duty of care and skill owed to the plaintiffs under their mandates. The evidence established that the plaintiffs would not have invested in CMM had they known its true nature, and the negligent advice was the direct cause of their losses. The quantum of damages was assessed based on the amounts lost as at the end of April 2009, when CMM was placed under curatorship, and the court accepted expert evidence regarding the returns the plaintiffs would have...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 17
Parties
Plaintiff: Valerie Ann Bader; Plaintiff: Charles Michael Bader NO; Plaintiff: Angela Lee Bader; Plaintiff: Johannes Petrus Barnard NO; Defendant: Jan Petrus Wentzel; Defendant: Delru Makelaars CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2014
Case Number
57810/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Default Judgment Application After Withdrawal of Action Against First Defendant; Trial Proceeded Against Second Defendant in Default
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the second defendant for damages and interest as claimed.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Financial Advice Liability, Money Market Investment, Quantification of Damages, Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, Default Judgment
Delict Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Professional Negligence Financial Advice Liability Money Market Investment Quantification of Damages Prescribed Rate of Interest Act +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valerie Ann Bader

Plaintiff

Charles Michael Bader NO

Plaintiff

Angela Lee Bader

Plaintiff

Johannes Petrus Barnard NO

Plaintiff

Jan Petrus Wentzel

Defendant

Delru Makelaars CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Default Judgment Application After Withdrawal of Action Against First Defendant; Trial Proceeded Against Second Defendant in Default

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant, as financial adviser, breached its duty of care and skill owed to the plaintiffs in recommending an unsuitable investment.
  2. 2 Whether the negligent execution of the mandate caused the plaintiffs' damages.
  3. 3 How the quantum of damages should be assessed for the plaintiffs' losses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant, acting as financial adviser, either negligently failed to ascertain the true nature of CMM's investment policy or knew it but failed to inform the plaintiffs. This constituted a breach of the duty of care and skill owed to the plaintiffs under their mandates. The evidence established that the plaintiffs would not have invested in CMM had they known its true nature, and the negligent advice was the direct cause of their losses. The quantum of damages was assessed based on the amounts lost as at the end of April 2009, when CMM was placed under curatorship, and the court accepted expert evidence regarding the returns the plaintiffs would have...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the second defendant for damages and interest as claimed.

Orders

  • Judgment against the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff for R1,663,843.
  • Judgment against the second defendant in favour of the CM Bader Family Trust for R2,232,531.