Heightsafety International (Pty) Ltd v Burger Emoyeni Skylights (Pty) Ltd (57690/2009) [2009] ZAGPPHC 350 (2 December 2009)

Heightsafety International (Pty) Ltd v Burger Emoyeni Skylights (Pty) Ltd (57690/2009) [2009] ZAGPPHC 350 (2 December 2009)

The court found that the defendant had raised a bona fide triable issue by alleging breach of contract, specifying the nature of the breach, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the breach and the damages. The defendant's intended counterclaim was sufficiently particularized, with the amount and nature of damages disclosed, and the damages were not too remote as they were within the contemplation of the parties. The defendant was not required at this stage to prove the counterclaim or provide detailed evidence. Accordingly, the defendant was granted leave to defend the action, and summary judgment was refused.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 350
Parties
Plaintiff: Heightsafety International (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Burger Emoyeni Skylights (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2009
Case Number
57690/2009
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Opposed by Defendant
Outcome
Leave to defend granted; summary judgment refused.
Judges
S D Wagener
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Counterclaim, Damages Calculation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Counterclaim Damages Calculation

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heightsafety International (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Burger Emoyeni Skylights (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Opposed by Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has raised a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's intended counterclaim for damages arising from breach of contract is sufficiently particularized to defeat summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed by the defendant are not too remote and were within the contemplation of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant had raised a bona fide triable issue by alleging breach of contract, specifying the nature of the breach, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the breach and the damages. The defendant's intended counterclaim was sufficiently particularized, with the amount and nature of damages disclosed, and the damages were not too remote as they were within the contemplation of the parties. The defendant was not required at this stage to prove the counterclaim or provide detailed evidence. Accordingly, the defendant was granted leave to defend the action, and summary judgment was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to defend granted; summary judgment refused.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the defendant to defend the action.
  • The costs of the application for summary judgment are costs in the cause.