Goosen v Muller (1224/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 212 (3 November 2017)

Goosen v Muller (1224/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 212 (3 November 2017)

The Court found that the Plaintiff's obligation to prove damages, as per the separation of issues and the Court order, requires proper discovery of documents relevant to the quantum of damages. The Defendant's denial of both the amount and the methodology in the pleadings places all aspects of the expert report and its underlying facts in dispute. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that only the methodology is relevant, holding that the facts, figures, and documents provided to the expert are equally subject to scrutiny. The requested documents are prima facie relevant to the assessment of damages, and the Plaintiff's initial discovery was inadequate. The Plaintiff's reliance on...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 212
Parties
Applicant: H P Goosen; Respondent: Anton Friedrich Muller
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2017
Case Number
1224/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3) Prior to Quantum Trial
Outcome
Application to compel further discovery granted; costs awarded against the Plaintiff.
Judges
Murray, AJ
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Quantum of Damages, Rule 35 Procedure, Assessment of Loss, Evidentiary Relevance
Civil Procedure Delict Discovery of Documents Quantum of Damages Rule 35 Procedure Assessment of Loss Evidentiary Relevance

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H P Goosen

Applicant

Anton Friedrich Muller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3) Prior to Quantum Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is obliged to make available for inspection the documents requested by the Defendant under Rule 35(3).
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents are relevant to the determination of the Plaintiff's alleged damages.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's initial discovery affidavit complied with the requirements of Rule 35.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Plaintiff's obligation to prove damages, as per the separation of issues and the Court order, requires proper discovery of documents relevant to the quantum of damages. The Defendant's denial of both the amount and the methodology in the pleadings places all aspects of the expert report and its underlying facts in dispute. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that only the methodology is relevant, holding that the facts, figures, and documents provided to the expert are equally subject to scrutiny. The requested documents are prima facie relevant to the assessment of damages, and the Plaintiff's initial discovery was inadequate. The Plaintiff's reliance on...

Court Disposition

Application to compel further discovery granted; costs awarded against the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is ordered to make available for inspection all documents referred to in paragraphs 1-4 and 6-9 of the Defendant's Rule 35(3) Notice within five days of service of this order upon the Plaintiff's attorney of record.
  • The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of this application.