Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering v Goldfield Carriers CC (1108/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 83 (26 May 2005)

Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering v Goldfield Carriers CC (1108/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 83 (26 May 2005)

The court held that the withdrawal of the admission should be permitted because both views on the possibility of delictual liability in the context of a contractual origin are supported by case law. The defendant provided a bona fide explanation for the erroneous admission, and no mala fides were shown. The withdrawal would not cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff, as any prejudice could be remedied by a costs order. The amendment would allow the real dispute to be properly ventilated at trial, and the interests of justice favoured granting the application.

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 83
Parties
Plaintiff: Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering; Defendant: Goldfield Carriers CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Case Number
1108/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Amend Plea
Outcome
Application to amend the plea granted; defendant permitted to withdraw the admission; costs awarded to plaintiff on the ordinary scale.
Judges
Cillié R
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admission, Duty of Care, Delictual Liability, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admission Duty of Care Delictual Liability Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering

Plaintiff

Goldfield Carriers CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Amend Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw an admission of a duty of care in its plea.
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of the admission would prejudice the plaintiff beyond what a costs order can remedy.
  3. 3 Whether the admission concerned a factual matter or a legal conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the withdrawal of the admission should be permitted because both views on the possibility of delictual liability in the context of a contractual origin are supported by case law. The defendant provided a bona fide explanation for the erroneous admission, and no mala fides were shown. The withdrawal would not cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff, as any prejudice could be remedied by a costs order. The amendment would allow the real dispute to be properly ventilated at trial, and the interests of justice favoured granting the application.

Court Disposition

Application to amend the plea granted; defendant permitted to withdraw the admission; costs awarded to plaintiff on the ordinary scale.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the defendant to withdraw the admission contained in paragraph 6 of its plea.
  • The defendant's plea is amended by deleting paragraph 6 and substituting: 'AD PARAGRAPH 5 THEREOF: The contents hereof are denied and plaintiff is put to the proof thereof.'