Carter v Haworth (177/2008) [2009] ZASCA 19; 2009 (5) SA 446 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 197 (SCA) (20 March 2009)

Carter v Haworth (177/2008) [2009] ZASCA 19; 2009 (5) SA 446 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 197 (SCA) (20 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's judgment did not constitute a final, appealable order. The judgment allowed damages and made factual findings but did not culminate in a substantive order directing compensation or finalizing the quantum of damages. The referral of factual assumptions to an actuary left the determination of damages incomplete, and the fate of the actuarial calculations was uncertain. Additionally, the costs of postponement were reserved for later determination, further indicating that the proceedings were not concluded. The absence of a clear, operative order rendered the judgment ineffective and non-appealable. Accordingly, the appeal was premature...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: John William Carter; Respondent: Kathleen Shirley Haworth
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Case Number
177/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Mthiyane, Maya, Snyders, Leach, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Appealability of Orders, Finality of Judgment, Operative Order Requirement
Civil Procedure Appealability of Orders Finality of Judgment Operative Order Requirement

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

Parties

John William Carter

Appellant

Kathleen Shirley Haworth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's judgment allowing damages and referring factual findings to an actuary, without a final order, is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a substantive order renders the judgment non-appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's judgment did not constitute a final, appealable order. The judgment allowed damages and made factual findings but did not culminate in a substantive order directing compensation or finalizing the quantum of damages. The referral of factual assumptions to an actuary left the determination of damages incomplete, and the fate of the actuarial calculations was uncertain. Additionally, the costs of postponement were reserved for later determination, further indicating that the proceedings were not concluded. The absence of a clear, operative order rendered the judgment ineffective and non-appealable. Accordingly, the appeal was premature...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.