Cooper and Others v Syfrets Trust Ltd. (226/98) [2000] ZASCA 40; 2001 (1) SA 122 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 347 (A) (11 September 2000)

Cooper and Others v Syfrets Trust Ltd. (226/98) [2000] ZASCA 40; 2001 (1) SA 122 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 347 (A) (11 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the negligent advice given by the respondent's employee in 1990 pertained only to the initial investment and did not extend to the reinvestment made by the appellant in 1991. The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the advice to renew annually was intended to apply beyond the first transaction, and that the reinvestment was a separate decision made independently by the appellant. The appellant's attempt to rely on a disputed 1991 telephone conversation was rejected by the trial court, and the credibility of the appellant was undermined. The pleadings and evidence did not support a finding that the respondent was liable for losses...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 40
Parties
Appellant: Donald George Cooper; Appellant: D G and H J Cooper NNO; Respondent: Syfrets Trust Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2000
Case Number
226/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Full Court of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Nienaber, Olivier, Schutz, Farlam, Mpati
Legal Topics
Negligent Investment Advice, Breach of Contract, Causation of Loss, Quantum of Damages
Delict Commercial and Corporate Negligent Investment Advice Breach of Contract Causation of Loss Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Donald George Cooper

Appellant

D G and H J Cooper NNO

Appellant

Syfrets Trust Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Full Court of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether negligent investment advice given in 1990 by the respondent's employee extended to the reinvestment made by the appellant in 1991.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is contractually liable for losses suffered by the appellant due to the reinvestment in Masterbond in 1991.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved the quantum of his loss, considering possible future payments from Masterbond curators.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the negligent advice given by the respondent's employee in 1990 pertained only to the initial investment and did not extend to the reinvestment made by the appellant in 1991. The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the advice to renew annually was intended to apply beyond the first transaction, and that the reinvestment was a separate decision made independently by the appellant. The appellant's attempt to rely on a disputed 1991 telephone conversation was rejected by the trial court, and the credibility of the appellant was undermined. The pleadings and evidence did not support a finding that the respondent was liable for losses...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.