Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd v Telkom South Africa SOC Ltd (29896/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 127 (24 March 2016)

Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd v Telkom South Africa SOC Ltd (29896/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 127 (24 March 2016)

The court held that the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim did not disclose a cause of action in delict for pure economic loss. The alleged duty of care was said to arise solely from the Plaintiff's notification and demand to the Defendant to remove the obstruction, but no details of the demand or the terms were pleaded. There was no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the facts did not support the imposition of a legal duty. The court found that society would not regard the imposition of liability as reasonable in these circumstances, and that a mere notification and unspecified demand cannot create a legal duty. The exception was upheld and the Particulars of Claim...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 127
Parties
Plaintiff: Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Telkom South Africa SOC Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Case Number
29896/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Separation of Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Exception upheld; Particulars of Claim set aside; Plaintiff granted leave to amend; costs order made.
Judges
H J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Wrongfulness, Duty of Care, Exception Procedure, Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Pure Economic Loss Wrongfulness Duty of Care Exception Procedure Negligence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Telkom South Africa SOC Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Separation of Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim disclose a cause of action in delict for pure economic loss.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a legal duty arising from notification and demand to remove an obstruction.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's conduct was wrongful in the delictual sense.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim did not disclose a cause of action in delict for pure economic loss. The alleged duty of care was said to arise solely from the Plaintiff's notification and demand to the Defendant to remove the obstruction, but no details of the demand or the terms were pleaded. There was no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the facts did not support the imposition of a legal duty. The court found that society would not regard the imposition of liability as reasonable in these circumstances, and that a mere notification and unspecified demand cannot create a legal duty. The exception was upheld and the Particulars of Claim...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; Particulars of Claim set aside; Plaintiff granted leave to amend; costs order made.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim are set aside.
  • Plaintiff is given leave within 30 days from the date of this order to amend the Particulars of Claim if so advised.