Chater v Cooper NO and Another (49155/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 73 (27 July 2010)

Chater v Cooper NO and Another (49155/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 73 (27 July 2010)

The court held that the exception should not succeed, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the particulars of claim were excipiable on every reasonable interpretation. The plaintiff's citation of the defendants in their official capacities was found to be proper, and the authorities relied upon by the defendants did not support their contention that the claim could only be brought against the company in liquidation represented by its liquidator. The court was not convinced that the exception should succeed either on the merits or on the basis that the defendants had met the onus.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 73
Parties
Plaintiff: Gary Brian Chater; Defendant: Chavonnes Badenhorst Sinclair Cooper N.O.; Defendant: Hendrie Andrie Marais N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2010
Case Number
49155/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed. Costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Goodey AJ
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Liquidation Procedure, Cause of Action Requirements
Civil Procedure Exception to Pleadings Liquidation Procedure Cause of Action Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Brian Chater

Plaintiff

Chavonnes Badenhorst Sinclair Cooper N.O.

Defendant

Hendrie Andrie Marais N.O.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is bad in law and should have been brought against Chater Developments (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) itself.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought against the defendants is incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the exception should not succeed, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the particulars of claim were excipiable on every reasonable interpretation. The plaintiff's citation of the defendants in their official capacities was found to be proper, and the authorities relied upon by the defendants did not support their contention that the claim could only be brought against the company in liquidation represented by its liquidator. The court was not convinced that the exception should succeed either on the merits or on the basis that the defendants had met the onus.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed. Costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The defendants are to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs on party and party scale.