Hemingways Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd v PD Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd (2009/44089) [2012] ZAGPJHC 51 (30 March 2012)

Hemingways Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd v PD Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd (2009/44089) [2012] ZAGPJHC 51 (30 March 2012)

The court held that, in accordance with the practice in the North and South Gauteng Divisions, the applicant is only entitled at this stage to an order compelling the respondent to deliver a reply to its request for further particulars and to comply with the applicant's notice in terms of Rule 35(3) within a specified period. The relief sought by the applicant in prayer (1) does not constitute a blanket order, as the respondent retains the opportunity to indicate whether it is able to comply. However, the relief sought in prayer (2) would constitute a blanket order, as it would deny the respondent the opportunity to state under oath that the documents sought are not in its possession. The...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Hemingways Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: PD Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Case Number
2009/44089
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars and Discovery
Outcome
Application granted in part; applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Request for Further Particulars, Discovery Procedure, Blanket Orders, Rule 35 Compliance
Civil Procedure Request for Further Particulars Discovery Procedure Blanket Orders Rule 35 Compliance

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hemingways Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

PD Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relief sought by the applicant constitutes a blanket order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be compelled to deliver a reply to the applicant's request for further particulars within a specified period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be compelled to comply with the applicant's notice in terms of Rule 35(3) within a specified period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in accordance with the practice in the North and South Gauteng Divisions, the applicant is only entitled at this stage to an order compelling the respondent to deliver a reply to its request for further particulars and to comply with the applicant's notice in terms of Rule 35(3) within a specified period. The relief sought by the applicant in prayer (1) does not constitute a blanket order, as the respondent retains the opportunity to indicate whether it is able to comply. However, the relief sought in prayer (2) would constitute a blanket order, as it would deny the respondent the opportunity to state under oath that the documents sought are not in its possession. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to deliver a reply to the applicant's request for further particulars within 10 days of service of this order on the respondent's attorney of record.
  • The respondent is ordered to comply with the applicant's notice in terms of Rule 35(3) within 10 days of service of this order on the respondent's attorney of record.