R Fordred (Pty) Ltd. v Suidwes Lagdiens (Pty) Ltd. (74/83) [1985] ZASCA 59 (30 May 1985)

R Fordred (Pty) Ltd. v Suidwes Lagdiens (Pty) Ltd. (74/83) [1985] ZASCA 59 (30 May 1985)

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the quantum of damages suffered as a result of the aircraft crash. The evidence presented by Mr Grellman, although he was a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer, did not establish that he was competent to assess the market value of aircraft. His testimony regarding value was speculative and unsupported by market data or experience in aircraft sales. The court found that better evidence of market value was reasonably available but not produced, as demonstrated by the presence of other witnesses with relevant expertise who were not called to testify on value. The evidence regarding the value of the lost radio...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 59
Parties
Appellant: R Fordred (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Suidwes Lugdiens (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1985
Case Number
74/83
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs in respect of the petition for leave to lead further evidence.
Judges
Miller, Viljoen, Van Heerden, Galgut, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Assessment of Market Value
Civil Procedure Delict Quantum of Damages Expert Evidence Burden of Proof Assessment of Market Value

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R Fordred (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Suidwes Lugdiens (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved the quantum of damages suffered as a result of the aircraft crash.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish the market value of the aircraft before and after the crash.
  3. 3 Whether the court should make an assessment of damages in the absence of adequate evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the quantum of damages suffered as a result of the aircraft crash. The evidence presented by Mr Grellman, although he was a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer, did not establish that he was competent to assess the market value of aircraft. His testimony regarding value was speculative and unsupported by market data or experience in aircraft sales. The court found that better evidence of market value was reasonably available but not produced, as demonstrated by the presence of other witnesses with relevant expertise who were not called to testify on value. The evidence regarding the value of the lost radio...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs in respect of the petition for leave to lead further evidence.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs in respect of the petition for leave to lead further evidence.