Santam Limited and Another v Group Five Limited and Another (33380/16) [2018] ZAGPJHC 54 (22 March 2018)

Santam Limited and Another v Group Five Limited and Another (33380/16) [2018] ZAGPJHC 54 (22 March 2018)

The court held that the defects reports requested by the applicants were sufficiently specified and reasonably required for the purposes of pleading, as they would enable the applicants to assess the quantum of damages claimed against them. The label 'defects reports' was considered adequate for specificity under Rule 35(14), as the reports were distinguished by their relevance to the defects forming the basis of the damages claim. The liability document had already been provided by the respondent, and the refusal document was not reasonably required for pleading but could be addressed at trial. The application succeeded only in respect of the defects reports, and each party was ordered...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 54
Parties
Applicant: Santam Limited; Applicant: Stalker Hutchison Admiral (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Group Five Limited; Defendant: Circuit Breaker Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a CBI Electrical Solutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Case Number
33380/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(14) Prior to Pleading
Outcome
Application granted in part; respondent ordered to make defects reports available for inspection within five days; balance of relief dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
A A Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 35, Pleading Requirements, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Rule 35 Pleading Requirements Quantum of Damages

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santam Limited

Applicant

Stalker Hutchison Admiral (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Group Five Limited

Respondent

Circuit Breaker Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a CBI Electrical Solutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(14) Prior to Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents sought by the applicants under Rule 35(14) are required for the purposes of pleading.
  2. 2 Whether the documents requested are adequately specified under Rule 35(14).
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to inspect the defects reports, liability document, and refusal document prior to pleading.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defects reports requested by the applicants were sufficiently specified and reasonably required for the purposes of pleading, as they would enable the applicants to assess the quantum of damages claimed against them. The label 'defects reports' was considered adequate for specificity under Rule 35(14), as the reports were distinguished by their relevance to the defects forming the basis of the damages claim. The liability document had already been provided by the respondent, and the refusal document was not reasonably required for pleading but could be addressed at trial. The application succeeded only in respect of the defects reports, and each party was ordered...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; respondent ordered to make defects reports available for inspection within five days; balance of relief dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to make the defects reports referred to in paragraph 6 of the applicants’ notice in terms of Rules 35(12) and (14) dated 14 October 2016 available for inspection by the applicants within five days of the date of this judgment.
  • The balance of the relief claimed by the applicants is dismissed.