Coertze and Another v Young (NCT/7142/2012/73(3)&75(1)(b)&(2) CPA) [2013] ZANCT 25 (13 September 2013)

Coertze and Another v Young (NCT/7142/2012/73(3)&75(1)(b)&(2) CPA) [2013] ZANCT 25 (13 September 2013)

The Tribunal found that the Applicants had established reasonable prospects of success and that the matter was of substantial importance. The Respondent failed to deliver the agreed services and did not refund the Applicants as promised. The Tribunal held that the Respondent contravened sections 54(1) and 19(2)(a)(i) of the CPA by failing to perform the services in a timely and quality manner. The Applicants were entitled to a refund of R17,000 under section 54(2)(b) of the CPA. The Tribunal granted leave to refer the matter directly and ordered the Respondent to refund the Applicants.

Citation
[2013] ZANCT 25
Parties
Applicant: Gerhard Roelof Coertze; Applicant: Madelein Burger; Respondent: Rocelia Young
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2013
Case Number
NCT/7142/2012/73(3)&75(1)(b)&(2) CPA
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Default Judgment Application; Leave to Refer Non Referred Complaint to Tribunal
Outcome
Applicants granted leave to refer; Respondent ordered to refund R17,000.
Judges
D Terblanche, P Beck, X May
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Default Judgment, Refund of Consideration, Service Quality, Leave to Refer
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Default Judgment Refund of Consideration Service Quality Leave to Refer

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerhard Roelof Coertze

Applicant

Madelein Burger

Applicant

Rocelia Young

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Default Judgment Application; Leave to Refer Non Referred Complaint to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to a refund under the Consumer Protection Act for services not performed as agreed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicants had established reasonable prospects of success and that the matter was of substantial importance. The Respondent failed to deliver the agreed services and did not refund the Applicants as promised. The Tribunal held that the Respondent contravened sections 54(1) and 19(2)(a)(i) of the CPA by failing to perform the services in a timely and quality manner. The Applicants were entitled to a refund of R17,000 under section 54(2)(b) of the CPA. The Tribunal granted leave to refer the matter directly and ordered the Respondent to refund the Applicants.

Court Disposition

Applicants granted leave to refer; Respondent ordered to refund R17,000.

Orders

  • Applicants are granted leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal.
  • Respondent is ordered to refund the Applicants in the amount of R17,000 by no later than 31 October 2013.