Marais v Schoombee (33634/2001) [2008] ZAGPHC 362 (10 October 2008)

Marais v Schoombee (33634/2001) [2008] ZAGPHC 362 (10 October 2008)

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to advise the plaintiff to seek interim financial relief under Rule 43, which would have enabled her to appoint a valuer for the defendant's farms. This omission deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to litigate her divorce claim fully and constituted a breach of contract. The court held that, in cases of professional negligence resulting in loss of opportunity, damages must be assessed robustly, even where precise quantification is difficult. The plaintiff presented all available evidence, and the court determined, based on the best information available, that she would likely have received R1.7 million in the divorce...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 362
Parties
Plaintiff: Anna-Marie Marais; Defendant: Andries Gottlieb Schoombee
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Case Number
33634/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; damages awarded for professional negligence resulting in loss of opportunity.
Judges
CW van Rooyen
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Loss of Opportunity, Damages Quantification, Causation, Contractual Breach
Civil Procedure Delict Professional Negligence Loss of Opportunity Damages Quantification Causation Contractual Breach

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna-Marie Marais

Plaintiff

Andries Gottlieb Schoombee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in failing to advise the plaintiff regarding interim financial relief under Rule 43?
  2. 2 Did the defendant's omission deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to litigate her divorce claim fully?
  3. 3 How should damages for loss of opportunity be quantified in circumstances of professional negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to advise the plaintiff to seek interim financial relief under Rule 43, which would have enabled her to appoint a valuer for the defendant's farms. This omission deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to litigate her divorce claim fully and constituted a breach of contract. The court held that, in cases of professional negligence resulting in loss of opportunity, damages must be assessed robustly, even where precise quantification is difficult. The plaintiff presented all available evidence, and the court determined, based on the best information available, that she would likely have received R1.7 million in the divorce...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; damages awarded for professional negligence resulting in loss of opportunity.

Orders

  • The defendant must pay damages of R1,100,000 (one million one hundred thousand rand) to the plaintiff, with interest at 15.5% per annum from 8 January 1999, not compounded.
  • The defendant must pay the plaintiff's taxed legal costs, except for two days of her testimony.