Rehau Polymer (Pty) Ltd v Brunette Electrical and Others (727/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 102 (26 June 2014)

Rehau Polymer (Pty) Ltd v Brunette Electrical and Others (727/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 102 (26 June 2014)

The court found, on the evidence, that Mr de Vrey did not give instructions, express or implied, not to activate the gas fire suppression system, either on 18 September 2009 or 15 December 2009. The Plaintiff, through de Vrey, reasonably believed the system was operational and was not aware it was not activated. No legal duty arose for Plaintiff to take preventative measures, and its omission cannot be termed wrongful. The Fourth Defendant, having tested the system and knowing it was not activated, had a legal duty to inform Plaintiff, which it failed to do, constituting delictual negligence. The Fifth Defendant’s alleged knowledge could not be established on the evidence. Apportionment...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 102
Parties
Plaintiff: Rehau Polymer (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Brunette Electrical; Defendant: Schneider Electrical South Africa; Defendant: Eastern Switchgear CC; Defendant: M&M Fire Protection CC; Defendant: Richard Nzuza & Associates Consulting Engineers CC; Defendant: Couga Development Corporation
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Case Number
727/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Ruling / Merits and Causation Determination Under Rule 33(4) on Separated Factual Issues
Outcome
The court found that Mr de Vrey did not give instructions not to activate the fire suppression system, Plaintiff was not aware the system was not activated, and only the Fourth Defendant was causally at fault in delict for the non-activation. Costs were awarded against all defendants except the Fourth Defendant.
Judges
Alkema
Legal Topics
Causation in Delict, Apportionment of Damages Act, Occupational Health and Safety, Fire Suppression Systems, Wrongfulness and Omission, Contractual Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Land and Property Causation in Delict Apportionment of Damages Act Occupational Health and Safety Fire Suppression Systems Wrongfulness and Omission +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rehau Polymer (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Brunette Electrical

Defendant

Schneider Electrical South Africa

Defendant

Eastern Switchgear CC

Defendant

M&M Fire Protection CC

Defendant

Richard Nzuza & Associates Consulting Engineers CC

Defendant

Couga Development Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Ruling / Merits and Causation Determination Under Rule 33(4) on Separated Factual Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr de Vrey, representing the Plaintiff, gave instructions not to activate the gas fire suppression system after acceptance by the Fire Department.
  2. 2 Whether Mr de Vrey was authorised to issue such instructions and whether Plaintiff was authorised to do so on behalf of the owner.
  3. 3 Whether any party, including Plaintiff, was causally at fault for the non-activation of the gas fire suppression system.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the evidence, that Mr de Vrey did not give instructions, express or implied, not to activate the gas fire suppression system, either on 18 September 2009 or 15 December 2009. The Plaintiff, through de Vrey, reasonably believed the system was operational and was not aware it was not activated. No legal duty arose for Plaintiff to take preventative measures, and its omission cannot be termed wrongful. The Fourth Defendant, having tested the system and knowing it was not activated, had a legal duty to inform Plaintiff, which it failed to do, constituting delictual negligence. The Fifth Defendant’s alleged knowledge could not be established on the evidence. Apportionment...

Court Disposition

The court found that Mr de Vrey did not give instructions not to activate the fire suppression system, Plaintiff was not aware the system was not activated, and only the Fourth Defendant was causally at fault in delict for the non-activation. Costs were awarded against all defendants except the Fourth Defendant.

Orders

  • The First, Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
  • No order as to costs is made against the Fourth Defendant.