Cragg v Patterton (26968/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 860 (22 July 2021)

Cragg v Patterton (26968/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 860 (22 July 2021)

The court held that the documents requested by the defendant are relevant to matters in the main action, even if their relevance arises only after the existence of a universal partnership is established. Rule 35(3) requires discovery of documents relevant to any matter in question, and the plaintiff's own concession that the documents may become relevant is sufficient to bring them within the ambit of the rule. The plaintiff's objection based on timing does not override the obligation to discover. Accordingly, the application to compel discovery succeeds. On costs, the court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party should be awarded costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 860
Parties
Plaintiff: Debbie Grace Cragg; Defendant: Eleanor Karen Patterton
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Case Number
26968/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(7)
Outcome
Application to compel discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to comply with defendant's rule 35(3) notice and to pay costs.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Application, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 Application Relevance of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debbie Grace Cragg

Plaintiff

Eleanor Karen Patterton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents requested by the defendant in terms of rule 35(3) are relevant to any matter in question in the action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is obliged to discover and make available for inspection the documents listed in the defendant's rule 35(3) notice.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the successful party in the application to compel discovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the documents requested by the defendant are relevant to matters in the main action, even if their relevance arises only after the existence of a universal partnership is established. Rule 35(3) requires discovery of documents relevant to any matter in question, and the plaintiff's own concession that the documents may become relevant is sufficient to bring them within the ambit of the rule. The plaintiff's objection based on timing does not override the obligation to discover. Accordingly, the application to compel discovery succeeds. On costs, the court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party should be awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Application to compel discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to comply with defendant's rule 35(3) notice and to pay costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff shall within ten days from the date of this order comply with the defendant’s notice in terms of rule 35(3) dated 27 November 2020 by discovering and making available for inspection in accordance with rule 35(6) the documents referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the defendant’s rule 35(3) notice.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs of her application in terms of rule 35(7) to compel better discovery.