Big Eye Investment 210 (Pty) Ltd v Gert Tack Staal Konstruksie CC (30627/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 108 (8 January 2019)

Big Eye Investment 210 (Pty) Ltd v Gert Tack Staal Konstruksie CC (30627/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 108 (8 January 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defendant breached the agreement to supply ready-mix concrete of the specified strength. The evidence established that the concrete mix design supplied by the defendant was correct and capable of achieving the required strength. The plaintiff's own expert witnesses and laboratory testing were undermined by procedural irregularities, inadequate sampling, and lack of accreditation. The court accepted that poor workmanship by the plaintiff, particularly in compacting and curing the concrete, contributed to the deficiency in strength. The plaintiff did not exclude its own conduct as a contributing factor, nor...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 108
Parties
Plaintiff: Big Eye Investment 210 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Gert Tack Staal Konstruksie CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 January 2019
Case Number
30627/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Holland-Mutter
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Ready Mix Concrete Supply, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Quantum of Damages
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Ready Mix Concrete Supply Expert Evidence Burden of Proof Quantum of Damages

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Big Eye Investment 210 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Gert Tack Staal Konstruksie CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the agreement to supply ready-mix concrete of specified strength.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved that the concrete delivered did not meet the contractual specifications.
  3. 3 Whether poor workmanship by the plaintiff contributed to the deficiency in concrete strength.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defendant breached the agreement to supply ready-mix concrete of the specified strength. The evidence established that the concrete mix design supplied by the defendant was correct and capable of achieving the required strength. The plaintiff's own expert witnesses and laboratory testing were undermined by procedural irregularities, inadequate sampling, and lack of accreditation. The court accepted that poor workmanship by the plaintiff, particularly in compacting and curing the concrete, contributed to the deficiency in strength. The plaintiff did not exclude its own conduct as a contributing factor, nor...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs are to include the costs of two counsel.