Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc v Strategic Fuel Fund Association (28167/2012) [2015] ZAGPJHC 168 (16 July 2015)

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc v Strategic Fuel Fund Association (28167/2012) [2015] ZAGPJHC 168 (16 July 2015)

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim in respect of Claim B are reasonably sufficient for the defendant to plead thereto. The exception was dismissed because the issues of wrongfulness and legal causation, as pleaded, are matters for determination at trial and not suitable for resolution on exception. The pleadings allege that the defendant issued a tank warrant and made representations upon which the plaintiff, as successor-in-title, relied, resulting in pure economic loss. The court found that the defendant's arguments regarding the absence of a duty of care and causation are premature and misconceived, and that the plaintiff's case is sustainable on the...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 168
Parties
Plaintiff: Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc; Defendant: Strategic Fuel Fund Association
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Case Number
28167/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim (claim B)
Judges
D S S Moshidi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Wrongfulness, Legal Causation, Pure Economic Loss
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Delict Exception Procedure Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Wrongfulness Legal Causation +1 more

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc

Plaintiff

Strategic Fuel Fund Association

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim (claim B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's alternative Claim B in delict discloses sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action for negligent misstatement.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim adequately plead the elements of wrongfulness and legal causation.
  3. 3 Whether the exception should be upheld or dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim in respect of Claim B are reasonably sufficient for the defendant to plead thereto. The exception was dismissed because the issues of wrongfulness and legal causation, as pleaded, are matters for determination at trial and not suitable for resolution on exception. The pleadings allege that the defendant issued a tank warrant and made representations upon which the plaintiff, as successor-in-title, relied, resulting in pure economic loss. The court found that the defendant's arguments regarding the absence of a duty of care and causation are premature and misconceived, and that the plaintiff's case is sustainable on the...