Helderberg Car & Propshaft Centre CC t/a Propshaft Centre v Nexor 519 CC t/a Protec Crane Hire (2582/08) [2011] ZAECPEHC 37 (27 May 2011)

Helderberg Car & Propshaft Centre CC t/a Propshaft Centre v Nexor 519 CC t/a Protec Crane Hire (2582/08) [2011] ZAECPEHC 37 (27 May 2011)

The court found that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would conclude the evidence of Ferreira was inadequate to prove the quantum of damages for the 180 ton crane, specifically the sum of R198 823.27. The court also held that the invoice for R35 368.50, which had not been paid, may not have a legal basis for inclusion as damages or may not have been proved to be reasonable and necessary. Regarding the 55 ton crane, the court determined that, except for the evidence provided by Knickelbein in respect of the P.E. Airbrakes invoice, the evidence supporting the other invoices was insufficient. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted on all amounts except for the R3 810.45...

Citation
[2011] ZAECPEHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Helderberg Car & Propshaft Centre CC t/a Propshaft Centre; Respondent: Nexor 519 CC t/a Protec Crane Hire
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
2582/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment on Damages
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench, except in respect of the amount of R3 810.45 claimed for repairs by P.E. Airbrakes.
Judges
J.M. Roberson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Quantification of Damages, Expert Evidence, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Quantification of Damages Expert Evidence Breach of Contract

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helderberg Car & Propshaft Centre CC t/a Propshaft Centre

Applicant

Nexor 519 CC t/a Protec Crane Hire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence led by the respondent was adequate to prove the quantum of damages for repairs to the cranes.
  2. 2 Whether the costs claimed for repairs were reasonable and necessary.
  3. 3 Whether the invoice for R35 368.50, which was not paid, could be claimed as damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would conclude the evidence of Ferreira was inadequate to prove the quantum of damages for the 180 ton crane, specifically the sum of R198 823.27. The court also held that the invoice for R35 368.50, which had not been paid, may not have a legal basis for inclusion as damages or may not have been proved to be reasonable and necessary. Regarding the 55 ton crane, the court determined that, except for the evidence provided by Knickelbein in respect of the P.E. Airbrakes invoice, the evidence supporting the other invoices was insufficient. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted on all amounts except for the R3 810.45...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench, except in respect of the amount of R3 810.45 claimed for repairs by P.E. Airbrakes.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench, except in respect of the amount of R3 810.45, contained in annexure E3 to the respondent's particulars of claim.
  • The costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.