Bisschoff v Mcintyre Van Der Post Incorporated (NCT278955/2023/148(1)) [2023] ZANCT 34 (10 October 2023)

Bisschoff v Mcintyre Van Der Post Incorporated (NCT278955/2023/148(1)) [2023] ZANCT 34 (10 October 2023)

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's claims regarding unsolicited services and prohibited conduct fall within the scope of the CPA, the Tribunal is precluded by section 116(1)(a) from adjudicating the complaint because it was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. The Tribunal confirmed that it has no discretion to condone non-compliance with this statutory time bar, and the processes before the LPC and NCC did not interrupt the running of the period. The Tribunal also found no basis for a cost order against the appellant, as she acted in good faith and followed the prescribed procedures under the CPA.

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 34
Parties
Appellant: Zelda Bisschoff; Respondent: McIntyre van der Post Incorporated
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
NCT278955/2023/148(1)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Ruling / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed due to statutory time bar; no cost order made.
Judges
Z Ntuli, C Sassman, N Maseti
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Unsolicited Services, Jurisdictional Time Bar, Leave to Refer, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Unsolicited Services Jurisdictional Time Bar Leave to Refer Costs Order

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zelda Bisschoff

Appellant

McIntyre van der Post Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Ruling / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint given the three-year time bar in section 116(1)(a) of the CPA.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's complaint regarding unsolicited services and prohibited conduct was considered by a competent forum.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can condone non-compliance with the statutory time bar.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's claims regarding unsolicited services and prohibited conduct fall within the scope of the CPA, the Tribunal is precluded by section 116(1)(a) from adjudicating the complaint because it was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. The Tribunal confirmed that it has no discretion to condone non-compliance with this statutory time bar, and the processes before the LPC and NCC did not interrupt the running of the period. The Tribunal also found no basis for a cost order against the appellant, as she acted in good faith and followed the prescribed procedures under the CPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed due to statutory time bar; no cost order made.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No cost order is made.