mCubed International (Pty) Ltd and and Another v Singer NO and Others (118/08) [2009] ZASCA 6; 2009 (4) SA 471 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 536 (SCA) (11 March 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the appellants' conduct gave rise to an implied misrepresentation regarding the legality of the investment structure, the respondents failed to establish factual causation. The evidence showed that the Trust would have invested offshore through another institution even if the misrepresentation had not occurred, and thus the loss would have been incurred regardless. Furthermore, the losses suffered were attributable to the strengthening of the Rand against the US Dollar, not to any misrepresentation or conduct by the appellants. Applying the flexible test for legal causation, the court found the losses too remote to attract liability. The...
- Citation
- [2009] ZASCA 6
- Parties
- Appellant: mCubed International (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: mCubed Life Limited; Respondent: Leon John Singer NO; Respondent: Andries Olivier NO; Respondent: Frank William Muggleston NO
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2009
- Case Number
- 118/08
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Cape Town
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; respondents' claims dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Streicher, Brand, Mhlantla, Leach, Bosielo
- Legal Topics
- Misrepresentation, Pure Economic Loss, Factual and Legal Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Exchange Control Regulations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
mCubed International (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
mCubed Life Limited
Appellant
Leon John Singer NO
Respondent
Andries Olivier NO
Respondent
Frank William Muggleston NO
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Cape Town
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants made actionable misrepresentations to the respondents regarding the legality and implementation of an offshore investment structure.
- 2 Whether the misrepresentations caused the respondents' capital and interest losses, factually and legally.
- 3 Whether the losses suffered by the respondents were too remote to attract delictual liability.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the appellants' conduct gave rise to an implied misrepresentation regarding the legality of the investment structure, the respondents failed to establish factual causation. The evidence showed that the Trust would have invested offshore through another institution even if the misrepresentation had not occurred, and thus the loss would have been incurred regardless. Furthermore, the losses suffered were attributable to the strengthening of the Rand against the US Dollar, not to any misrepresentation or conduct by the appellants. Applying the flexible test for legal causation, the court found the losses too remote to attract liability. The...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; respondents' claims dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld with costs.
- The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced by: 'The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs.'
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment