Iceland Indistrial Projects (Pty) Ltd v Matthews (53514/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 441 (15 August 2019)

Iceland Indistrial Projects (Pty) Ltd v Matthews (53514/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 441 (15 August 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff was the importer and owner of the parrots, having paid for them and appointed Fourie as agent. The defendant's liability arose from the court order of 23 December 2010, which placed the risk of loss on him for the safety, transfer, and upkeep of the parrots. This liability was strict and did not require proof of fault or possession. The death of the parrots during transit was an event for which the defendant bore the risk under the court order, regardless of the cause. The correct measure of damages was the replacement cost at the time of loss, calculated as the purchase price per parrot in South African Rand, multiplied by the number of parrots lost....

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 441
Parties
Plaintiff: Iceland Industrial Projects (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Hendrik Matthews
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Case Number
53514/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for damages and ordered to pay the plaintiff.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Quantum of Damages, Actio Ad Exhibendum, Court Order Risk Allocation
Delict Civil Procedure Strict Liability Quantum of Damages Actio Ad Exhibendum Court Order Risk Allocation

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

Parties

Iceland Industrial Projects (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Hendrik Matthews

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was the importer and owner of the parrots and suffered the loss.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is legally liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff under the court order.
  3. 3 What is the correct method for calculating damages in this context.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was the importer and owner of the parrots, having paid for them and appointed Fourie as agent. The defendant's liability arose from the court order of 23 December 2010, which placed the risk of loss on him for the safety, transfer, and upkeep of the parrots. This liability was strict and did not require proof of fault or possession. The death of the parrots during transit was an event for which the defendant bore the risk under the court order, regardless of the cause. The correct measure of damages was the replacement cost at the time of loss, calculated as the purchase price per parrot in South African Rand, multiplied by the number of parrots lost....

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for damages and ordered to pay the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R387,576.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay interest on the amount of R387,576 at the legal prescribed rate calculated from 30 September 2011 to date of payment.