Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (242/83) [1985] ZASCA 50; [1985] 2 All SA 355 (A) (29 May 1985)
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] ZASCA 50
- Parties
- Appellant: Barclays National Bank Limited; Respondent: Robert Thompson
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 242/83
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Amendment of Particulars of Claim
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Corbett, Kotzé, Cillié, Hoexter, Hefer
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Currency and Exchanges Act, Judicial Discretion, Leave to Amend
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barclays National Bank Limited
Appellant
Robert Thompson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment to the particulars of claim.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment was excipiable or prejudicial to the defendant.
- 3 Whether the amendment contravened the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, or its regulations.
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.
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
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