Hawarden v Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc (13849/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 14; [2023] 1 All SA 675 (GJ); 2023 (4) SA 152 (GJ) (16 January 2023)

Hawarden v Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc (13849/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 14; [2023] 1 All SA 675 (GJ); 2023 (4) SA 152 (GJ) (16 January 2023)

The court found that ENS, as conveyancer, owed the plaintiff a duty of care to warn her of the risks of business email compromise and to take reasonable precautions in transmitting its bank account details. ENS was aware of the prevalence and dangers of BEC, particularly in the conveyancing industry, and had control over how its banking details were communicated. The transmission of sensitive bank details via unprotected email and PDF attachment was inherently dangerous and negligent, especially when safer alternatives and warnings were available and known to ENS. The plaintiff was vulnerable to the risk and reasonably relied on ENS's expertise and reputation. The court held that ENS's...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Judith Hawarden; Defendant: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Case Number
13849/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Duty of Care, Business Email Compromise, Conveyancing Liability, Negligent Omission, Cyber Fraud
Delict Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Pure Economic Loss Duty of Care Business Email Compromise Conveyancing Liability Negligent Omission +1 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Hawarden

Plaintiff

Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, as conveyancer, owed the plaintiff a duty of care to warn against business email compromise (BEC) and to take precautions in transmitting bank details.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's omission to warn and protect the plaintiff from BEC was wrongful and negligent.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct was the factual and legal cause of the plaintiff's pure economic loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that ENS, as conveyancer, owed the plaintiff a duty of care to warn her of the risks of business email compromise and to take reasonable precautions in transmitting its bank account details. ENS was aware of the prevalence and dangers of BEC, particularly in the conveyancing industry, and had control over how its banking details were communicated. The transmission of sensitive bank details via unprotected email and PDF attachment was inherently dangerous and negligent, especially when safer alternatives and warnings were available and known to ENS. The plaintiff was vulnerable to the risk and reasonably relied on ENS's expertise and reputation. The court held that ENS's...