Seevnarayan v Garlicke and Bousfield Inc (15380/2010) [2015] ZAKZDHC 8; [2015] 2 All SA 503 (KZD) (17 February 2015)

Seevnarayan v Garlicke and Bousfield Inc (15380/2010) [2015] ZAKZDHC 8; [2015] 2 All SA 503 (KZD) (17 February 2015)

The court found that the defendant firm did not allow the plaintiff's claim against Essack to prescribe, as the mandate was only accepted in September 2002, after the claim had already prescribed. However, the defendant breached its duty by failing to advise the plaintiff that his claim was prescribed and by prosecuting a worthless action, resulting in wasted costs and expenses. The plaintiff only acquired the necessary facts to sue the defendant firm after receiving an opinion in October 2010 that there were no prospects of success on appeal, and thus his claim against the defendant firm had not prescribed. The defendant was found liable for the plaintiff's actual losses incurred due to...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Bebinchand Seevnarayan; Defendant: Garlicke and Bousfield Inc
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Case Number
15380/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages allegedly recoverable from Essack is dismissed. Plaintiff's claim for actual losses due to defendant's breach of duty succeeds.
Judges
Madondo
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Prescription Act, Mandate Contract, Attorney Client Duties, Damages, Legal Costs
Civil Procedure Delict Commercial and Corporate Professional Negligence Prescription Act Mandate Contract Attorney Client Duties Damages +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bebinchand Seevnarayan

Plaintiff

Garlicke and Bousfield Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant firm allowed the plaintiff's claim against Essack to prescribe.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its contractual duty to advise the plaintiff regarding prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant firm itself had prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant firm did not allow the plaintiff's claim against Essack to prescribe, as the mandate was only accepted in September 2002, after the claim had already prescribed. However, the defendant breached its duty by failing to advise the plaintiff that his claim was prescribed and by prosecuting a worthless action, resulting in wasted costs and expenses. The plaintiff only acquired the necessary facts to sue the defendant firm after receiving an opinion in October 2010 that there were no prospects of success on appeal, and thus his claim against the defendant firm had not prescribed. The defendant was found liable for the plaintiff's actual losses incurred due to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages allegedly recoverable from Essack is dismissed. Plaintiff's claim for actual losses due to defendant's breach of duty succeeds.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim for R700,000.00 as damages allegedly recoverable from Essack is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R411,443.60, being legal costs and disbursements paid to the defendant firm, with interest at 15.5% per annum from date of judgment to final payment.