Reiter Foods and Services CC v Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd (10281/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 8 (8 February 2010)

Reiter Foods and Services CC v Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd (10281/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 8 (8 February 2010)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not meet the standard required by Rule 18(10). The spreadsheet provided was an amalgamation of various categories of damages, including items that remained the property of the plaintiff and had residual value, without any deduction for such value. This lack of detail prevented the defendant from making an informed evaluation of the quantum of damages claimed, defeating the object of the Rule. The court further found that this vagueness caused prejudice to the defendant, as it inhibited trial preparation and precluded an informed tender. Consequently, the exception was upheld.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Reiter Foods and Services CC; Defendant: Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2010
Case Number
10281/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 20 days.
Judges
S J Koen
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 10, Damages Quantification
Civil Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 10 Damages Quantification

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

Parties

Reiter Foods and Services CC

Plaintiff

Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim for wasted costs are vague and embarrassing under Rule 18(10).
  2. 2 Whether the lack of detail in the damages claim prejudices the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not meet the standard required by Rule 18(10). The spreadsheet provided was an amalgamation of various categories of damages, including items that remained the property of the plaintiff and had residual value, without any deduction for such value. This lack of detail prevented the defendant from making an informed evaluation of the quantum of damages claimed, defeating the object of the Rule. The court further found that this vagueness caused prejudice to the defendant, as it inhibited trial preparation and precluded an informed tender. Consequently, the exception was upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 20 days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 20 days.