Moore v Conradie and Another (23771/2003) [2009] ZAGPHC 41 (23 February 2009)

Moore v Conradie and Another (23771/2003) [2009] ZAGPHC 41 (23 February 2009)

The plaintiff failed to complete the building works in accordance with the contract and did not remedy significant defects identified by the defendant's expert. The plaintiff abandoned the site and refused to perform further work unless paid, which was not provided for in the agreement. The evidence established that the plaintiff was in breach and not entitled to payment of the contract price or any reduced amount, as the cost to rectify defects was not proven. The defendant's counterclaim also failed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity and reasonableness of remedial costs and accommodation expenses. Accordingly, both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Douglas Moore Trading As Kingston Construction; Defendant: Carl Francis Conradie; Defendant: Snakes Nest Holdings 12 (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2009
Case Number
23771/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; plaintiff absolved from the instance on defendant's counterclaim.
Judges
Sapire AJ
Legal Topics
Building Contract, Breach of Contract, Quantification of Damages, Counterclaim, Workmanship Defects
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Building Contract Breach of Contract Quantification of Damages Counterclaim Workmanship Defects

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Moore Trading As Kingston Construction

Plaintiff

Carl Francis Conradie

Defendant

Snakes Nest Holdings 12 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of the contract price or any reduced amount for incomplete building works.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to succeed on his counterclaim for damages and accommodation costs.
  3. 3 Whether VAT was properly chargeable and recoverable under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to complete the building works in accordance with the contract and did not remedy significant defects identified by the defendant's expert. The plaintiff abandoned the site and refused to perform further work unless paid, which was not provided for in the agreement. The evidence established that the plaintiff was in breach and not entitled to payment of the contract price or any reduced amount, as the cost to rectify defects was not proven. The defendant's counterclaim also failed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity and reasonableness of remedial costs and accommodation expenses. Accordingly, both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; plaintiff absolved from the instance on defendant's counterclaim.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
  • Plaintiff is absolved from the instance with costs in respect of the defendant's counterclaim.