Fourie v Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc (653/2016) [2017] ZASCA 91 (7 June 2017)

Fourie v Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc (653/2016) [2017] ZASCA 91 (7 June 2017)

The court found that the respondent breached its mandate by failing to properly determine and pursue the appellant's claim for loss of earning capacity, relying instead on guesswork and unscientific calculations. However, the appellant failed to prove that she suffered damages as a result of this breach, as she did not present expert evidence quantifying the extent of her impairment or the monetary value of her loss of earning capacity. The evidence showed that the settlement amount for loss of support was not demonstrably less than what she could have recovered for loss of earning capacity. In the absence of sufficient proof of damages, the appropriate order was absolution from the...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: Ursha Yvonne Fourie; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2017
Case Number
653/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division, High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of the court a quo varied to absolution from the instance.
Judges
Cachalia, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Coppin, Schippers
Legal Topics
Breach of Mandate, Professional Negligence, Damages Assessment, Loss of Earning Capacity
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Breach of Mandate Professional Negligence Damages Assessment Loss of Earning Capacity

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ursha Yvonne Fourie

Appellant

Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division, High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent breach its mandate by failing to pursue a claim for loss of earning capacity on behalf of the appellant.
  2. 2 Did the respondent undersettle the claims for general damages for the appellant and her minor son.
  3. 3 Did the appellant prove damages resulting from the alleged breach of mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent breached its mandate by failing to properly determine and pursue the appellant's claim for loss of earning capacity, relying instead on guesswork and unscientific calculations. However, the appellant failed to prove that she suffered damages as a result of this breach, as she did not present expert evidence quantifying the extent of her impairment or the monetary value of her loss of earning capacity. The evidence showed that the settlement amount for loss of support was not demonstrably less than what she could have recovered for loss of earning capacity. In the absence of sufficient proof of damages, the appropriate order was absolution from the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the court a quo varied to absolution from the instance.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo is varied by substituting the dismissal of the appellant’s claim with an order of absolution from the instance.
  • Save for paragraph 1 above, the appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.