Malcolm v Premier, Western Cape Government N.O. (207/2013) [2014] ZASCA 9; 2014 (3) SA 177 (SCA); [2014] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) (14 March 2014)

Malcolm v Premier, Western Cape Government N.O. (207/2013) [2014] ZASCA 9; 2014 (3) SA 177 (SCA); [2014] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) (14 March 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the word 'minor' in section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act must now be interpreted as referring to persons under the age of 18, in line with the Children’s Act and constitutional values. However, this altered interpretation does not apply retrospectively to claims that arose before 1 July 2007. The court found that applying the new meaning to claims already running would unfairly prejudice claimants who relied on the previous law, potentially extinguishing their claims prematurely. The presumption against retrospective operation protects such claimants from new disabilities imposed by changed interpretations. Accordingly, the appellant, whose claim...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Cameron Stewart Malcolm; Respondent: Premier, Western Cape Government N.O.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Case Number
207/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court; Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.
Judges
Navsa, Shongwe, Theron, Wallis, Legodi
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Age of Majority, Children S Act, Statutory Interpretation, Retrospective Application, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Age of Majority Children S Act Statutory Interpretation Retrospective Application Personal Injury

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cameron Stewart Malcolm

Appellant

Premier, Western Cape Government N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court; Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the change in the age of majority from 21 to 18 years by the Children’s Act affects the running of prescription for claims arising before the amendment.
  2. 2 Whether the word 'minor' in section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act should be interpreted as referring to persons under 18 or 21 years of age.
  3. 3 Whether the altered interpretation of 'minor' applies retrospectively to claims already running when the Children’s Act came into effect.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the word 'minor' in section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act must now be interpreted as referring to persons under the age of 18, in line with the Children’s Act and constitutional values. However, this altered interpretation does not apply retrospectively to claims that arose before 1 July 2007. The court found that applying the new meaning to claims already running would unfairly prejudice claimants who relied on the previous law, potentially extinguishing their claims prematurely. The presumption against retrospective operation protects such claimants from new disabilities imposed by changed interpretations. Accordingly, the appellant, whose claim...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is altered to one dismissing the special plea of prescription with costs.