Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (242/83) [1985] ZASCA 50; [1985] 2 All SA 355 (A) (29 May 1985)
- Citation
- [1985] ZASCA 50
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Corbett, Kotzé, Cillié, Hoexter, Hefer
- Case number
- 242/83
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Corbett, Kotzé, Cillié, Hoexter, Hefer
- Case number
- 242/83
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment to the particulars of claim. The amendment did not render the claim excipiable nor did it contravene the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, or its regulations. The appellant failed to demonstrate that it would suffer prejudice as a result of the amendment. The principles governing amendments to pleadings require that amendments be allowed unless they are excipiable or prejudicial, and in this case, neither ground was established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- The order of the court a quo granting the amendment to the particulars of claim is confirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Barclays National Bank Limited
AppellantRobert Thompson
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Amendment of Particulars of Claim
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment to the particulars of claim.
- 02
Whether the proposed amendment was excipiable or prejudicial to the defendant.
- 03
Whether the amendment contravened the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, or its regulations.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the amendment to the particulars of claim should not have been granted as it introduced a claim that was excipiable and potentially unlawful under the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933. The appellant contended that the amendment would prejudice its defence and that the court a quo erred in exercising its discretion to allow the amendment.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the amendment was necessary to properly articulate the claim and did not render the particulars excipiable or unlawful. The respondent argued that the amendment did not prejudice the defendant and that the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting leave to amend.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trans-Drakensberg Bank Ltd v Combined Engineering (Pty) Ltd 1967 (3) SA 632 (D)
A court has a wide discretion to allow amendments to pleadings unless the amendment would cause prejudice to the other party or is excipiable.
- 02
Moolman v Estate Moolman 1927 CPD 27
An amendment should not be refused solely because it introduces a new cause of action, provided it does not render the pleading excipiable or unlawful.
- 03
Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933
Regulations made under the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, may affect the validity of claims involving foreign currency transactions.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment to the particulars of claim. The amendment did not render the claim excipiable nor did it contravene the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, or its regulations. The appellant failed to demonstrate that it would suffer prejudice as a result of the amendment. The principles governing amendments to pleadings require that amendments be allowed unless they are excipiable or prejudicial, and in this case, neither ground was established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the mere introduction of a new cause of action by amendment is not a sufficient reason to refuse leave to amend.
- The court observed that the discretion to allow amendments should be exercised judicially, taking into account the interests of justice and the absence of prejudice.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- The order of the court a quo granting the amendment to the particulars of claim is confirmed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
69/85
Case No 242/83
mp
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:BARCLAYS NATIONAL BANK LIMITED AppellantandROBERT THOMPSON Respondent
CORAM: CORBETT, KOTZé, CILLIé, HOEXTER et HEFER,
JJA
HEARD: 1 May 1985 DELIVERED: 29 May 1985
JUDGMENT
HOEXTER, JA ...
2.
HOEXTER, JA
In the Witwatersrand Local Division the appellant was the defendant in an action for damages instituted against it by the respondent. In what follows I shall refer to the respondent as the plaintiff and to the appellant as the defendant. Before the matter came to trial the plaintiff sought an amendment of his particulars of claim. The application for an amendment, which was resisted by the defendant, was heard by ACKERMANN, J. The learned Judge granted the amendment. With leave of the Court a quo the defendant appeals against the order allowing the amendment.
Sec 9 of the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, ("the Act") empowers the State President to make regulations in regard to any matter directly or indirectly affecting banking, currency or exchanges; and in such regulations to apply any sanctions, civil or criminal, which he thinks fit to impose. In terms of sec 9 of the Act
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.