Nedcor Bank Limited v Lloyd-Gray Lithographers (Pty) Limited (257/98) [2000] ZASCA 166; [2000] 4 All SA 393 (A) (8 September 2000)

Nedcor Bank Limited v Lloyd-Gray Lithographers (Pty) Limited (257/98) [2000] ZASCA 166; [2000] 4 All SA 393 (A) (8 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Nedbank and S were concurrent wrongdoers at common law, each independently causing the same indivisible damage to the respondent. The respondent was entitled to recover the full amount of its loss from Nedbank, and its right of action against S was not a relevant asset for the purpose of calculating damages. The Court rejected the reasoning in Holscher v Absa Bank en 'n Ander, finding that it was incorrect to deduct the value of a claim against another wrongdoer from the damages recoverable from the bank. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that concurrent wrongdoers are liable in solidum and the plaintiff may recover the full amount from any one of...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 166
Parties
Appellant: Nedcor Bank Ltd t/a Nedbank; Respondent: Lloyd-Gray Lithographers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2000
Case Number
257/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The respondent is entitled to recover the full amount of its loss from Nedbank.
Judges
Smalberger, Vivier, Harms, Scott, Zulman
Legal Topics
Collecting Bank Liability, Computation of Damages, Concurrent Wrongdoers, Solidum Liability
Delict Banking and Finance Collecting Bank Liability Computation of Damages Concurrent Wrongdoers Solidum 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedcor Bank Ltd t/a Nedbank

Appellant

Lloyd-Gray Lithographers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim against Nedbank should be reduced by the amount recoverable from S.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim against S is a relevant asset in its estate for purposes of calculating damages.
  3. 3 Whether Nedbank and S are concurrent wrongdoers liable in solidum at common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Nedbank and S were concurrent wrongdoers at common law, each independently causing the same indivisible damage to the respondent. The respondent was entitled to recover the full amount of its loss from Nedbank, and its right of action against S was not a relevant asset for the purpose of calculating damages. The Court rejected the reasoning in Holscher v Absa Bank en 'n Ander, finding that it was incorrect to deduct the value of a claim against another wrongdoer from the damages recoverable from the bank. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that concurrent wrongdoers are liable in solidum and the plaintiff may recover the full amount from any one of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The respondent is entitled to recover the full amount of its loss from Nedbank.

Orders

  • The respondent's claim against Nedbank is not reduced by the value of the claim against S.
  • The respondent's claim against Nedbank is not dismissed.