Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (408/1987) [1988] ZASCA 126; [1989] 1 All SA 447 (A) (30 September 1988)

Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (408/1987) [1988] ZASCA 126; [1989] 1 All SA 447 (A) (30 September 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the denial in the appellant's plea was not wholly bad in law, as it was intertwined with valid defences to several alleged breaches of duty. The exception was not directed at a self-contained part of the plea and could not be struck out without also removing valid defences. The exception procedure was inappropriate for resolving the disputed issues, which should be determined at trial. The court found that upholding the exception would not serve the purpose of avoiding unnecessary evidence, as the disputed breaches were not admitted and remained in issue. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the exception was dismissed.

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 126
Parties
Appellant: Barclays National Bank Limited; Respondent: Robert Thompson
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 1988
Case Number
408/1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Upholding of Exception to Plea
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Exception dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Milne
Legal Topics
Exception to Plea, Breach of Contract, Banking Duties, Damages, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Plea Breach of Contract Banking Duties Damages Pleading Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays National Bank Limited

Appellant

Robert Thompson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Upholding of Exception to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's plea disclosed a valid defence to the respondent's claim for breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the exception to the plea should have been upheld and part of the plea struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the admitted facts in the plea amounted to an admission of breach of contract by the Bank.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the denial in the appellant's plea was not wholly bad in law, as it was intertwined with valid defences to several alleged breaches of duty. The exception was not directed at a self-contained part of the plea and could not be struck out without also removing valid defences. The exception procedure was inappropriate for resolving the disputed issues, which should be determined at trial. The court found that upholding the exception would not serve the purpose of avoiding unnecessary evidence, as the disputed breaches were not admitted and remained in issue. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the exception was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Exception dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.