Du Plessis Ingelyf v Joubert (A294/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 250 (15 December 2010)

Du Plessis Ingelyf v Joubert (A294/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 250 (15 December 2010)

The court found that the Plaintiff (Appellant) had carried out his mandate with reasonable diligence and skill as expected of an average practising attorney. The inclusion of claims for both damages and cancellation was justified and communicated to the Respondent, who did not object. The error in applying for summary judgment was admitted and remedied by tendering costs, and did not amount to negligence. The Respondent and his father were kept informed and had the opportunity to review the particulars of claim. The attorney's duty is one of reasonable care, not absolute care, and the Plaintiff's conduct met this standard. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claim for professional fees...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 250
Parties
Appellant: Tjaard Du Plessis Ingelyf; Respondent: SJP Joubert
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2010
Case Number
A294/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Plaintiff's claim succeeds with interest and costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goodey, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Attorney Client Mandate, Breach of Contract, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Professional Negligence Attorney Client Mandate Breach of Contract 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tjaard Du Plessis Ingelyf

Appellant

SJP Joubert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the attorney (Plaintiff) acted negligently in carrying out the mandate given by the client (Defendant).
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was instructed to claim for damages only or also for cancellation and damages.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's claim for professional fees should succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff (Appellant) had carried out his mandate with reasonable diligence and skill as expected of an average practising attorney. The inclusion of claims for both damages and cancellation was justified and communicated to the Respondent, who did not object. The error in applying for summary judgment was admitted and remedied by tendering costs, and did not amount to negligence. The Respondent and his father were kept informed and had the opportunity to review the particulars of claim. The attorney's duty is one of reasonable care, not absolute care, and the Plaintiff's conduct met this standard. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claim for professional fees...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Plaintiff's claim succeeds with interest and costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Magistrate is substituted by: 'The Plaintiff's claim in the amount of R4 269,73 succeeds with interest at a rate of 15,5 per cent per annum as from the date of service of summons plus costs.'