Steyn- Meyer v Liebenberg (1406/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 122 (1 November 2007)

Steyn- Meyer v Liebenberg (1406/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 122 (1 November 2007)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action for professional fees against the defendant. The agreement was ambiguous regarding entitlement to the claimed amount, and there was no clear basis for the quantum or for claiming professional fees. The exceptions based on the third and fourth grounds were upheld, as the particulars of claim lacked necessary allegations to support the claim. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the particulars of claim to address these deficiencies.

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 122
Parties
Plaintiff: Steyn-Meyer Ingelyf; Defendant: Cornelia Wilhelmina Liebenberg
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2007
Case Number
1406/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions on grounds 3 and 4 upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.
Judges
M Voges
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Cause of Action, Professional Fees, Mandate, Contractual Liability
Civil Procedure Exception to Particulars of Claim Cause of Action Professional Fees Mandate Contractual Liability

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steyn-Meyer Ingelyf

Plaintiff

Cornelia Wilhelmina Liebenberg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim professional fees from the defendant in her private or official capacity.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the basis for the quantum claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action for professional fees against the defendant. The agreement was ambiguous regarding entitlement to the claimed amount, and there was no clear basis for the quantum or for claiming professional fees. The exceptions based on the third and fourth grounds were upheld, as the particulars of claim lacked necessary allegations to support the claim. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the particulars of claim to address these deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Exceptions on grounds 3 and 4 upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.

Orders

  • The exception based on grounds 3 and 4 of the defendant's notice of exception is upheld with costs.
  • Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the particulars of claim before or on 9 November 2007, failing which the defendant may approach the court for dismissal of the claim.