Peulen v Lessing and Others (90199/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 625 (19 October 2020)

Peulen v Lessing and Others (90199/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 625 (19 October 2020)

The court found that the applicant's intended amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified and supplemented the existing particulars of claim. The relief sought remained fundamentally the same, focusing on the rendering and debatement of accounts and payment of any amount found due. The court held that repeated amendment applications, prompted by objections from the defendants, did not constitute vexatious or unfair litigation. The court further found that the issue of prescription could not be definitively determined at the amendment stage and should be adjudicated at trial. The objections regarding excipiability were not substantiated, and any such issues could...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 625
Parties
Applicant: Johan Marie Joseph Peulen; Respondent: Phillip Lessing; Respondent: Du Plessis Lessing Brits Attorneys; Respondent: DLBM Incorporated Attorneys; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Case Number
90199/2015
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Third Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Leave to amend particulars of claim granted; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Attorney Client Accounting, Prescription, Debate of Account, Mandate Termination
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Attorney Client Accounting Prescription Debate of Account Mandate Termination

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Marie Joseph Peulen

Applicant

Phillip Lessing

Respondent

Du Plessis Lessing Brits Attorneys

Respondent

DLBM Incorporated Attorneys

Respondent

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Third Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his particulars of claim for a third time.
  2. 2 Whether the intended amendment introduces a new cause of action or merely clarifies the existing claim.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment is excipiable or prejudicial to the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's intended amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified and supplemented the existing particulars of claim. The relief sought remained fundamentally the same, focusing on the rendering and debatement of accounts and payment of any amount found due. The court held that repeated amendment applications, prompted by objections from the defendants, did not constitute vexatious or unfair litigation. The court further found that the issue of prescription could not be definitively determined at the amendment stage and should be adjudicated at trial. The objections regarding excipiability were not substantiated, and any such issues could...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend particulars of claim granted; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to replace his particulars of claim in its entirety as set out in the Notice of Intention to Amend dated 13 September 2018.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of this application, including the first and third respondents' costs of opposition and the costs of senior counsel.