Meredith v Grobler (3589/2005) [2014] ZAFSHC 92 (12 June 2014)

Meredith v Grobler (3589/2005) [2014] ZAFSHC 92 (12 June 2014)

The court held that the defendant's special plea sets out all the material facts required to sustain the defence of unreasonable and prejudicial delay. The plea alleges an inordinate delay, that the delay is inexcusable, and that the defendant is seriously prejudiced by having to testify about a surgical procedure more than eleven years after the event. The court found that the sufficiency of the pleaded facts is a matter for determination at the hearing of the special plea itself, not at the exception stage. The plaintiff's argument that further particulars of prejudice are required at the pleading stage was rejected. Accordingly, the exception was dismissed as the special plea discloses...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 92
Parties
Plaintiff: Janet Lee Meredith; Defendant: Dr Stephen Grobler
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Case Number
3589/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Special Plea
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
L J Lekale
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Special Plea, Exception Procedure, Prejudice in Defence
Civil Procedure Unreasonable Delay Special Plea Exception Procedure Prejudice in Defence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Lee Meredith

Plaintiff

Dr Stephen Grobler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the defendant's special plea of unreasonable and prejudicial delay disclose sufficient facts to sustain a defence?
  2. 2 Is the mere allegation of serious prejudice due to delay adequate to constitute a valid special plea?
  3. 3 Is the exception to the special plea sustainable on the basis that insufficient facts of prejudice are pleaded?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's special plea sets out all the material facts required to sustain the defence of unreasonable and prejudicial delay. The plea alleges an inordinate delay, that the delay is inexcusable, and that the defendant is seriously prejudiced by having to testify about a surgical procedure more than eleven years after the event. The court found that the sufficiency of the pleaded facts is a matter for determination at the hearing of the special plea itself, not at the exception stage. The plaintiff's argument that further particulars of prejudice are required at the pleading stage was rejected. Accordingly, the exception was dismissed as the special plea discloses...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.