Heckroodt v Wall (A836/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 433 (10 June 2016)

Heckroodt v Wall (A836/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 433 (10 June 2016)

The court found that the defendant, acting as a conveyancer, owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, who had acquired the right to commission through cession. The defendant was aware of the cession and failed to ensure that sufficient funds were available for payment to the plaintiff upon registration of transfer. He ignored correspondence and did not obtain guarantees or undertakings from the second defendant, thereby acting negligently. The court distinguished the Lillicrap case, noting that the plaintiff did not have a contract with the defendant and relied on breach of a legal duty, not merely a contractual obligation. The evidence established that the defendant's negligent...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 433
Parties
Appellant: P Heckroodt; Respondent: T A Wall
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Case Number
A836/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M J Teffo, S A Thobane
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Pure Economic Loss, Duty of Care, Cession of Rights, Conveyancing Liability
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Pure Economic Loss Duty of Care Cession of Rights Conveyancing Liability

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

Parties

P Heckroodt

Appellant

T A Wall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conveyancer owes a legal duty of care to a third party who is not his client in property transactions.
  2. 2 Whether negligent breach of professional duty by a conveyancer can give rise to a delictual claim for pure economic loss.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff established a cause of action in delict against the defendant for failure to pay ceded commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, acting as a conveyancer, owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, who had acquired the right to commission through cession. The defendant was aware of the cession and failed to ensure that sufficient funds were available for payment to the plaintiff upon registration of transfer. He ignored correspondence and did not obtain guarantees or undertakings from the second defendant, thereby acting negligently. The court distinguished the Lillicrap case, noting that the plaintiff did not have a contract with the defendant and relied on breach of a legal duty, not merely a contractual obligation. The evidence established that the defendant's negligent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.