Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering v Goldfields Carriers (1108/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 51 (26 May 2005)

Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering v Goldfields Carriers (1108/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 51 (26 May 2005)

The court held that the defendant provided a satisfactory explanation for the erroneous admission and that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by a costs order. The court noted that the question of whether delictual liability can arise in the context of a contractual relationship is supported by conflicting authorities and should be determined at trial after hearing full evidence. The amendment was therefore granted to allow the real dispute to be properly ventilated. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment, including the costs of opposition and wasted costs due to the postponement.

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 51
Parties
Plaintiff: Offset Press Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Printech Engineering; Defendant: Goldfields Carriers CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Case Number
1108/2005
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Plea Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for amendment granted; defendant permitted to withdraw admission and amend plea.
Judges
Cillié R
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admission, Duty of Care, Contractual Vs Delictual Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admission Duty of Care Contractual Vs Delictual 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Plaintiff

Goldfields Carriers CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Plea Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw an admission of 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 defendant provided a satisfactory explanation for the erroneous admission and that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by a costs order. The court noted that the question of whether delictual liability can arise in the context of a contractual relationship is supported by conflicting authorities and should be determined at trial after hearing full evidence. The amendment was therefore granted to allow the real dispute to be properly ventilated. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment, including the costs of opposition and wasted costs due to the postponement.

Court Disposition

Application for amendment granted; defendant permitted to withdraw admission and amend plea.

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 the plaintiff is put to the proof thereof.'