McMillan v Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated (299/2020) [2021] ZASCA 45 (15 April 2021)

McMillan v Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated (299/2020) [2021] ZASCA 45 (15 April 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for damages against the respondent law firm on 9 or 12 May 2014, when he was advised of a potential claim and instructed to seek independent legal advice due to a conflict of interest. Prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act began to run from that date, not from the date the high court declared the antenuptial contract invalid. The appellant's failure to appreciate the legal consequences or the respondent's refusal to concede liability did not delay the commencement of prescription. As the summons was issued after the three-year prescription period...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 45
Parties
Appellant: Bruce Gordon McMillan; Respondent: Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Case Number
299/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, East London
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Zondi, Mocumie, Schippers, Gorven, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Professional Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Antenuptial Contract, Running of Prescription
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Professional Negligence Breach of Mandate Antenuptial Contract Running of Prescription

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Gordon McMillan

Appellant

Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, East London

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim for damages against the respondent law firm had prescribed by the time summons was issued.
  2. 2 When does prescription begin to run in respect of a claim for breach of mandate arising from the drafting of an antenuptial contract subsequently declared invalid.
  3. 3 Whether knowledge of the legal consequences or a court's declaration of invalidity is required to complete the cause of action for prescription purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for damages against the respondent law firm on 9 or 12 May 2014, when he was advised of a potential claim and instructed to seek independent legal advice due to a conflict of interest. Prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act began to run from that date, not from the date the high court declared the antenuptial contract invalid. The appellant's failure to appreciate the legal consequences or the respondent's refusal to concede liability did not delay the commencement of prescription. As the summons was issued after the three-year prescription period...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of only one counsel are awarded.