Ross and Another v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (10029/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 623 (20 June 2025)

Ross and Another v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (10029/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 623 (20 June 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the judge had disclosed his involvement in the related Hawarden matter prior to trial and the applicants did not object at that time. The apprehension of bias was raised only after judgment and was based on settled legal principles, not on any conduct demonstrating actual or perceived bias. On the merits, the court held that Nedbank did not owe a legal duty to the applicants, as FICA does not create private law duties to third parties, and the applicants were best placed to prevent the loss. The applicants failed to prove wrongfulness and did not provide evidence of their loss, which was fatal to...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 623
Parties
Applicant: Ian Craig Ross; Applicant: Annelie Ross; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2025
Case Number
10029/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Both the application for leave to appeal and the application for condonation for late filing are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Moosajee
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Duty of Care, Pure Economic Loss, Condonation, Wrongfulness
Civil Procedure Delict Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Duty of Care Pure Economic Loss Condonation +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Craig Ross

Applicant

Annelie Ross

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge ought to have recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
  2. 2 Whether Nedbank owed a legal duty to the applicants under the common law when opening and monitoring the account.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants proved wrongfulness and loss in their delictual claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the judge had disclosed his involvement in the related Hawarden matter prior to trial and the applicants did not object at that time. The apprehension of bias was raised only after judgment and was based on settled legal principles, not on any conduct demonstrating actual or perceived bias. On the merits, the court held that Nedbank did not owe a legal duty to the applicants, as FICA does not create private law duties to third parties, and the applicants were best placed to prevent the loss. The applicants failed to prove wrongfulness and did not provide evidence of their loss, which was fatal to...

Court Disposition

Both the application for leave to appeal and the application for condonation for late filing are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.