Herbert v Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/225291/2022/141(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 48 (12 September 2022)

Herbert v Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/225291/2022/141(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 48 (12 September 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of a new loan agreement being concluded in June 2018. The NCR report confirmed the credit facility was ongoing and not a new agreement. Even if a new agreement existed, the complaint was lodged with the Tribunal almost a year after the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 166(1) of the National Credit Act. The Tribunal has no discretion to extend this time bar. Consequently, the application for leave to refer is refused as the complaint is both unsupported by evidence and time-barred.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 48
Parties
Applicant: Raymond Herbert; Respondent: Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2022
Case Number
NCT/225291/2022/141(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal
Outcome
Application for leave to refer refused; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Simpson, K Moodaliyar, S Mbhele
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Reckless Lending, Leave to Refer, Time Bar, Affordability Assessment
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure National Credit Act Reckless Lending Leave to Refer Time Bar Affordability Assessment

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

Parties

Raymond Herbert

Applicant

Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's complaint of reckless lending is supported by evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the complaint is time-barred under section 166 of the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of a new loan agreement being concluded in June 2018. The NCR report confirmed the credit facility was ongoing and not a new agreement. Even if a new agreement existed, the complaint was lodged with the Tribunal almost a year after the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 166(1) of the National Credit Act. The Tribunal has no discretion to extend this time bar. Consequently, the application for leave to refer is refused as the complaint is both unsupported by evidence and time-barred.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.