Lowenthal v Street Guarantee (Pty) Ltd and Others (42558/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 405 (28 November 2017)

Lowenthal v Street Guarantee (Pty) Ltd and Others (42558/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 405 (28 November 2017)

The court held that the plaintiff complied with the previous order by serving a notice of amendment within the required period, and that the defendants' interpretation of the order was incorrect. The rules permit amendment of pleadings at any stage before judgment. The objections raised by the defendants regarding vagueness and embarrassment were unfounded, as the proposed amendments clarified the oral variations and cession of rights, and did not introduce separate oral agreements or extrinsic evidence contrary to the written agreements. The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the amendment. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to amend...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 405
Parties
Plaintiff: Norman Dror Lowenthal; Defendant: Street Guarantee (Proprietary) Limited; Defendant: Doron Jeremy Defries; Defendant: Jeffrey Lionel Froom
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Case Number
42558/2014
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim; defendants to pay costs.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Oral Variation of Contract, Cession of Rights
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Vagueness and Embarrassment Oral Variation of Contract Cession of Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Dror Lowenthal

Plaintiff

Street Guarantee (Proprietary) Limited

Defendant

Doron Jeremy Defries

Defendant

Jeffrey Lionel Froom

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amend his particulars of claim in terms of Rule 28.
  2. 2 Whether the objections raised by the defendants to the proposed amendment are valid.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments render the pleadings vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff complied with the previous order by serving a notice of amendment within the required period, and that the defendants' interpretation of the order was incorrect. The rules permit amendment of pleadings at any stage before judgment. The objections raised by the defendants regarding vagueness and embarrassment were unfounded, as the proposed amendments clarified the oral variations and cession of rights, and did not introduce separate oral agreements or extrinsic evidence contrary to the written agreements. The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the amendment. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to amend...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim; defendants to pay costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is given leave to amend his particulars of claim in terms of his notice dated 24 April 2017.
  • The costs of this application are to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.