Phanto Props (Pty) Ltd v La Concorde Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (7212/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 249 (10 November 2021)

Phanto Props (Pty) Ltd v La Concorde Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (7212/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 249 (10 November 2021)

The court held that the proposed amendment to paragraph 27 of the particulars of claim did not cure the existing non-compliance with Rule 18(10), as it failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the market value calculations, including the actual figures and relevant dates. The reference to market value...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 249
Parties
Applicant: Phanto Props (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: La Concorde Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Van der Spuy (Western Cape Inc) t/a Van der Spuy & Partners; Respondent: Sarel van der Berg
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Case Number
7212/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in part; refused in respect of paragraph 3 of the notice. Costs awarded against the applicant for two-thirds of the first respondent's costs.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Pleading Amendment, Rule 18 Compliance, Quantification of Damages
Civil Procedure Pleading Amendment Rule 18 Compliance Quantification of Damages

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phanto Props (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

La Concorde Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Van der Spuy (Western Cape Inc) t/a Van der Spuy & Partners

Respondent

Sarel van der Berg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to paragraph 27 of the particulars of claim complies with Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment provides sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum of damages claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the court should allow an amendment that results in a pleading non-compliant with Rule 18.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed amendment to paragraph 27 of the particulars of claim did not cure the existing non-compliance with Rule 18(10), as it failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the market value calculations, including the actual figures and relevant dates. The reference to market value was deemed opaque and insufficient for the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum of damages. The court found that allowing an amendment that results in a pleading non-compliant with Rule 18 would be undesirable, as it would constitute an irregular step and potentially lead to unnecessary litigation. The applicant did not discharge the onus of showing that the non-compliance...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in part; refused in respect of paragraph 3 of the notice. Costs awarded against the applicant for two-thirds of the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • An order is granted in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion, save that in respect of paragraph 2, leave is refused to amend the particulars of claim in terms of paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's rule 28(1) notice dated 21 June 2021.
  • The plaintiff/applicant is ordered to pay two-thirds of the first defendant/respondent's costs in the application for leave to amend.