Herrie Windsor Construction (Pty) Ltd v Raubenheimers Inc (7533/2015, H245/2013) [2016] ZAWCHC 47 (22 April 2016)

Herrie Windsor Construction (Pty) Ltd v Raubenheimers Inc (7533/2015, H245/2013) [2016] ZAWCHC 47 (22 April 2016)

The court found that the defendant, through Dr Van Breda, was aware of the plaintiff's interest and the specific security sought in the sub-lease agreement. Despite not having formal instructions from the plaintiff, the defendant engaged in direct communication with the plaintiff and provided advice regarding the drafting of the clause intended to secure the plaintiff's interest. The advice given was accepted by the plaintiff but ultimately failed to provide the required security, resulting in the plaintiff's loss when the movable assets were seized by liquidators. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, both contractually and in delict, and that the...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 47
Parties
Plaintiff: Herrie Windsor Construction (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Raubenheimers Inc
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Case Number
7533/2015, H245/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages suffered due to the failure to secure ownership of the equipment and movable goods in the leased premises.
Judges
Yekiso
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Attorney Liability to Non Client, Negligent Misrepresentation, Pure Economic Loss
Delict Commercial and Corporate Professional Negligence Attorney Liability to Non Client Negligent Misrepresentation Pure Economic Loss

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herrie Windsor Construction (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Raubenheimers Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client in the drafting of a contract intended to confer a benefit on the non-client.
  2. 2 Whether the attorney's failure to provide the security sought by the non-client constitutes negligence attracting liability.
  3. 3 Whether negligent misrepresentation by the attorney to the non-client gives rise to delictual liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, through Dr Van Breda, was aware of the plaintiff's interest and the specific security sought in the sub-lease agreement. Despite not having formal instructions from the plaintiff, the defendant engaged in direct communication with the plaintiff and provided advice regarding the drafting of the clause intended to secure the plaintiff's interest. The advice given was accepted by the plaintiff but ultimately failed to provide the required security, resulting in the plaintiff's loss when the movable assets were seized by liquidators. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, both contractually and in delict, and that the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages suffered due to the failure to secure ownership of the equipment and movable goods in the leased premises.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared liable to the plaintiff for such damages as the plaintiff may have suffered by reason of the failure to secure transfer of ownership of the equipment and movable goods in the leased premises.