B.G.M v Bate Chubb and Dickson Inc (EL1221/17; ECD3221/17) [2019] ZAECELLC 28 (4 October 2019)

B.G.M v Bate Chubb and Dickson Inc (EL1221/17; ECD3221/17) [2019] ZAECELLC 28 (4 October 2019)

The court found that prescription began to run when the plaintiff became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the facts giving rise to his claim. This occurred by 12 May 2014, when the plaintiff was advised by the defendant of a potential claim and the defendant withdrew due to a conflict of interest. The breach of mandate occurred in 1998, but the loss only manifested when the validity of the antenuptial contract was questioned during divorce proceedings. By May 2014, the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to quantify his loss and pursue a claim. The court rejected the argument that prescription only commenced upon the judgment of Plasket J, holding that the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2019] ZAECELLC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: B.G.M; Defendant: Bate Chubb and Dickson Inc
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2019
Case Number
EL1221/17; ECD3221/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
The special plea of prescription is upheld; the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Breach of Mandate, Damages for Professional Negligence, Rectification of Contract, Mitigation of Loss
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Breach of Mandate Damages for Professional Negligence Rectification of Contract Mitigation of Loss

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.G.M

Plaintiff

Bate Chubb and Dickson Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for damages has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When did the plaintiff's cause of action become complete and the debt due for purposes of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached its mandate in drafting the antenuptial contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that prescription began to run when the plaintiff became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the facts giving rise to his claim. This occurred by 12 May 2014, when the plaintiff was advised by the defendant of a potential claim and the defendant withdrew due to a conflict of interest. The breach of mandate occurred in 1998, but the loss only manifested when the validity of the antenuptial contract was questioned during divorce proceedings. By May 2014, the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to quantify his loss and pursue a claim. The court rejected the argument that prescription only commenced upon the judgment of Plasket J, holding that the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

The special plea of prescription is upheld; the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is upheld with costs.