Symons N.O and Another v Rob Roy Investments CC t/a Assetsure (4827/2013) [2018] ZAKZPHC 71; 2019 (4) SA 112 (KZP) (10 December 2018)

Symons N.O and Another v Rob Roy Investments CC t/a Assetsure (4827/2013) [2018] ZAKZPHC 71; 2019 (4) SA 112 (KZP) (10 December 2018)

The court found that the plaintiffs, as sophisticated investors, were provided with all relevant documentation and risk warnings regarding the Sharemax investment. There was no evidence that the defendant misrepresented the investment as low risk or guaranteed, nor that he failed to exercise the requisite skill and diligence. The collapse of the Sharemax scheme was caused by the intervention of the Reserve Bank, an event not foreseeable by the defendant and not causally linked to any alleged breach. Even if there was a failure to explain certain risks, such failure was not the legal cause of the plaintiffs' loss. The plaintiffs failed to establish liability on the part of the defendant,...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Shane Alan Symons N.O; Plaintiff: Johanna Aletta Symons N.O; Defendant: The Rob Roy Investments CC t/a Assetsure
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Case Number
4827/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Financial Advice, Causation, Contractual Duties, Property Syndication
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Financial Advice Causation Contractual Duties Property Syndication

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Alan Symons N.O

Plaintiff

Johanna Aletta Symons N.O

Plaintiff

The Rob Roy Investments CC t/a Assetsure

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached its contractual obligations as financial adviser to the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to properly investigate and advise on the risks of the Sharemax investment.
  3. 3 Whether any breach by the defendant was causally linked to the plaintiffs' loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, as sophisticated investors, were provided with all relevant documentation and risk warnings regarding the Sharemax investment. There was no evidence that the defendant misrepresented the investment as low risk or guaranteed, nor that he failed to exercise the requisite skill and diligence. The collapse of the Sharemax scheme was caused by the intervention of the Reserve Bank, an event not foreseeable by the defendant and not causally linked to any alleged breach. Even if there was a failure to explain certain risks, such failure was not the legal cause of the plaintiffs' loss. The plaintiffs failed to establish liability on the part of the defendant,...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed with costs.