Du Preez v Pretorius (949/2016) [2017] ZASCA 133 (29 September 2017)

Du Preez v Pretorius (949/2016) [2017] ZASCA 133 (29 September 2017)

The appellant failed to prove that the respondent made false or negligent representations regarding the suitability for IPT, the curative effect of IPT, or the number of treatments required. The evidence did not establish that any conduct of the respondent caused the appellant's damages, either contractually or delictually. The expert evidence did not support the appellant's claims, and the appellant's own testimony undermined key allegations. As causation was not established, the appeal could not succeed, and the trial court's dismissal of the claim was upheld.

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 133
Parties
Appellant: Jaron Du Preez; Respondent: Eugene Pretorius
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Case Number
949/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Bosielo, Swain, Molemela, Gorven
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Misrepresentation, Doctor Patient Relationship
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Causation Misrepresentation Doctor Patient Relationship

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaron Du Preez

Appellant

Eugene Pretorius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made negligent misrepresentations inducing the appellant to contract for IPT treatment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted a negligent breach of contract or legal duty.
  3. 3 Whether any conduct of the respondent caused the appellant to suffer damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove that the respondent made false or negligent representations regarding the suitability for IPT, the curative effect of IPT, or the number of treatments required. The evidence did not establish that any conduct of the respondent caused the appellant's damages, either contractually or delictually. The expert evidence did not support the appellant's claims, and the appellant's own testimony undermined key allegations. As causation was not established, the appeal could not succeed, and the trial court's dismissal of the claim was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.