Meyer v Legal Expenses Insurance SA Ltd (872/06) [2013] ZAECMHC 20 (7 March 2013)

Meyer v Legal Expenses Insurance SA Ltd (872/06) [2013] ZAECMHC 20 (7 March 2013)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim became due when he acquired knowledge of the CCMA ruling on 10 April 2003, as all facts necessary to institute action were present at that time. The correspondence exchanged between the parties after this date did not constitute an express or tacit acknowledgement of liability sufficient to interrupt prescription. The plaintiff did not require further legal opinions or evidence to institute his claim, and the running of prescription was not postponed by the defendant's communications. As the summons was served more than three years after the debt became due, the claim was held to be prescribed under the Prescription Act. The defendant's special...

Citation
[2013] ZAECMHC 20
Parties
Plaintiff: Victor Meyer; Defendant: Legal Expenses Insurance S.A. Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2013
Case Number
872/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea
Outcome
The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld. The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nhlangulela
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Extinctive Prescription, Cause of Action, Acknowledgement of Liability
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Extinctive Prescription Cause of Action Acknowledgement of Liability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Meyer

Plaintiff

Legal Expenses Insurance S.A. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant has become prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether correspondence between the parties constituted an acknowledgement of liability sufficient to interrupt prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had the minimum facts necessary to institute action before the alleged prescription period expired.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim became due when he acquired knowledge of the CCMA ruling on 10 April 2003, as all facts necessary to institute action were present at that time. The correspondence exchanged between the parties after this date did not constitute an express or tacit acknowledgement of liability sufficient to interrupt prescription. The plaintiff did not require further legal opinions or evidence to institute his claim, and the running of prescription was not postponed by the defendant's communications. As the summons was served more than three years after the debt became due, the claim was held to be prescribed under the Prescription Act. The defendant's special...

Court Disposition

The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld. The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed.