Carrim v Louw & Heyl Attorneys (2008 / 3831) [2013] ZAGPJHC 173 (17 July 2013)

Carrim v Louw & Heyl Attorneys (2008 / 3831) [2013] ZAGPJHC 173 (17 July 2013)

The court found that the respondent's explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit was reasonable and not wilful, and condonation would have been granted. Regarding the applicant's amendment, the court held that the first part, which set out the details of the collision and damages, was unobjectionable and necessary for evidence. However, the second part of the amendment sought to introduce a new cause of action based on the respondent's alleged negligence, which was already prescribed by the time the summons was issued. The applicant was a major at the time of the alleged negligence, and the claim prescribed three years thereafter. Allowing the amendment would permit the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 173
Parties
Applicant: Carrim, Mehroonehaar; Respondent: Louw & Heyl Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2013
Case Number
2008 / 3831
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Application to amend particulars of claim dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription of Claims, Professional Negligence, Road Accident Fund Claims
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Prescription of Claims Professional Negligence Road Accident Fund Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carrim, Mehroonehaar

Applicant

Louw & Heyl Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend her particulars of claim in the main action.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be granted condonation for the late filing of its answering affidavit opposing the amendment.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a prescribed claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit was reasonable and not wilful, and condonation would have been granted. Regarding the applicant's amendment, the court held that the first part, which set out the details of the collision and damages, was unobjectionable and necessary for evidence. However, the second part of the amendment sought to introduce a new cause of action based on the respondent's alleged negligence, which was already prescribed by the time the summons was issued. The applicant was a major at the time of the alleged negligence, and the claim prescribed three years thereafter. Allowing the amendment would permit the...

Court Disposition

Application to amend particulars of claim dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.