Schoombee v Marais (635/08) [2009] ZASCA 138; [2010] 2 All SA 184 (SCA) (9 November 2009)

Schoombee v Marais (635/08) [2009] ZASCA 138; [2010] 2 All SA 184 (SCA) (9 November 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not negligent in his professional conduct. The respondent was not deprived of a genuine opportunity to litigate or settle on more favourable terms, as the evidence showed that she was fully informed of her rights and made the decision to settle with full knowledge of the circumstances. The valuation of the properties, which was later obtained, did not support her contention that she would have settled on more favourable terms. The respondent suffered no loss as a result of the alleged negligent advice, and the quantification of damages did not arise. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 138
Parties
Appellant: Andries Gottlieb Schoombee; Respondent: Anna-Marie Marais
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2009
Case Number
635/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Streicher, Lewis, Bosielo, Hurt, Griesel
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Quantification of Damages, Causation, Loss of Opportunity
Delict Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Quantification of Damages Causation Loss of Opportunity

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

Parties

Andries Gottlieb Schoombee

Appellant

Anna-Marie Marais

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, an attorney, was negligent in advising the respondent during her divorce proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent suffered any loss as a result of the alleged negligent advice.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was deprived of a genuine opportunity to litigate or settle on more favourable terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not negligent in his professional conduct. The respondent was not deprived of a genuine opportunity to litigate or settle on more favourable terms, as the evidence showed that she was fully informed of her rights and made the decision to settle with full knowledge of the circumstances. The valuation of the properties, which was later obtained, did not support her contention that she would have settled on more favourable terms. The respondent suffered no loss as a result of the alleged negligent advice, and the quantification of damages did not arise. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.'