Duffield v Lillyfontein School and Others (3327/2006) [2011] ZAECGHC 3 (27 January 2011)

Duffield v Lillyfontein School and Others (3327/2006) [2011] ZAECGHC 3 (27 January 2011)

The court held that the indemnity signed by the plaintiff is conditional upon the defendants having taken all reasonable steps to ensure that stringent safety measures were in place during the adventure race. The phrase 'although stringent safety measures will be in place' is not a mere recital but a substantive qualification of the indemnity. The plaintiff's undertaking to indemnify the defendants is expressly linked to the assurance that such safety measures would be implemented. The court found that the indemnity does not operate as an absolute bar to liability; rather, it is only effective if the defendants can establish that they fulfilled the condition of implementing stringent...

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Anita Joy Duffield; Defendant: Lilyfontein School; Defendant: Governing Body of Lilyfontein School; Defendant: Ontrack Adventure; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council for Education of the Eastern Cape; Defendant: Ravensco Trading 020 CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Case Number
3327/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Stated Case on Indemnity Under Rule 33
Outcome
Stated case decided in favour of the plaintiff; indemnity declared conditional upon defendants having implemented stringent safety measures.
Judges
Pickering
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clause Interpretation, Negligence, Personal Injury, Rule 33 Stated Case
Delict Civil Procedure Indemnity Clause Interpretation Negligence Personal Injury Rule 33 Stated Case

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Joy Duffield

Plaintiff

Lilyfontein School

Defendant

Governing Body of Lilyfontein School

Defendant

Ontrack Adventure

Defendant

Member of the Executive Council for Education of the Eastern Cape

Defendant

Ravensco Trading 020 CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Stated Case on Indemnity Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity signed by the plaintiff indemnifies the defendants per se or only if stringent safety measures were in place.
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity clause operates as a conditional or absolute bar to liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the indemnity signed by the plaintiff is conditional upon the defendants having taken all reasonable steps to ensure that stringent safety measures were in place during the adventure race. The phrase 'although stringent safety measures will be in place' is not a mere recital but a substantive qualification of the indemnity. The plaintiff's undertaking to indemnify the defendants is expressly linked to the assurance that such safety measures would be implemented. The court found that the indemnity does not operate as an absolute bar to liability; rather, it is only effective if the defendants can establish that they fulfilled the condition of implementing stringent...

Court Disposition

Stated case decided in favour of the plaintiff; indemnity declared conditional upon defendants having implemented stringent safety measures.

Orders

  • It is declared that the indemnity provided by the plaintiff is conditional upon it being established that the defendants did all things reasonably necessary to ensure that stringent safety measures were put in place during the course of the Kempston Corporate Adventure Race so as to limit the risk of personal...
  • The matter is adjourned to a date to be arranged with the Registrar for a determination of the remaining issues in the action.