Churran v Singh NO (9974/2008) [2019] ZAKZPHC 41 (24 May 2019)

Churran v Singh NO (9974/2008) [2019] ZAKZPHC 41 (24 May 2019)

The court found that the real reason for the adjournment of the trial on 3 September 2018 was the plaintiff's application to amend her particulars of claim, which introduced new factual allegations and increased the quantum of the claim substantially. Although the plaintiff criticised the defendant's objection as frivolous, the court held that the defendant was entitled to object and that, even absent objection, the defendant would have been justified in seeking an adjournment at the plaintiff's expense to consider the amendments. Accordingly, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment and the application for amendment. The defendant was ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Neshanie Churran; Defendant: Reka Devi Singh NO
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Case Number
9974/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment and Costs Determination
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of R1 million. Costs orders made as specified, with certain costs to be borne by the plaintiff and others by the defendant.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Prescription of Claims, Costs Orders, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Delict Professional Negligence Prescription of Claims Costs Orders Amendment of Pleadings

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neshanie Churran

Plaintiff

Reka Devi Singh NO

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for professional negligence by the defendant attorney.
  2. 2 Which party should bear the costs occasioned by the adjournment of the trial on 3 September 2018 and the subsequent amendments.
  3. 3 What costs should be included in the final costs order, including expert witness qualifying fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the real reason for the adjournment of the trial on 3 September 2018 was the plaintiff's application to amend her particulars of claim, which introduced new factual allegations and increased the quantum of the claim substantially. Although the plaintiff criticised the defendant's objection as frivolous, the court held that the defendant was entitled to object and that, even absent objection, the defendant would have been justified in seeking an adjournment at the plaintiff's expense to consider the amendments. Accordingly, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment and the application for amendment. The defendant was ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of R1 million. Costs orders made as specified, with certain costs to be borne by the plaintiff and others by the defendant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of R1 million.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment of her particulars of claim pursuant to the notice dated 15 August 2018, the objection thereto, and the consequential amendments to the defendant’s plea.