Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Grandbridge Trading 74 (Pty) Ltd t/a Red Apple Furniture (2018/45674) [2021] ZAGPJHC 451 (22 September 2021)

Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Grandbridge Trading 74 (Pty) Ltd t/a Red Apple Furniture (2018/45674) [2021] ZAGPJHC 451 (22 September 2021)

The court found that the documents sought by the defendant in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its notice are prima facie relevant to the quantification of damages and the central issue of loss of profits claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's objection that its financial statements are irrelevant was rejected, as these documents are necessary for the defendant to prepare its own expert report, to assess and potentially rebut the plaintiff's calculation of damages, and to ensure a fair trial. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant, ordering the plaintiff to comply with the discovery request and make the documents available for inspection, or to state on oath if such...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 451
Parties
Applicant: Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Grandbridge Trading 74 (Pty) Ltd t/a Red Apple Furniture
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Case Number
2018/45674
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(7) Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application to compel further and better discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to comply with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the defendant's notice and to pay costs.
Judges
T P Mudau
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Quantification of Damages, Expert Evidence, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Discovery Procedure Quantification of Damages Expert Evidence Breach of Contract

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Grandbridge Trading 74 (Pty) Ltd t/a Red Apple Furniture

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(7) Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is obliged to produce for inspection documents relating to the quantification of its damages, including financial statements and supporting documentation for its loss of profits claim.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's response to the defendant's notice in terms of Rule 35(3) and (6) was compliant and sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for the defendant's preparation for trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the documents sought by the defendant in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its notice are prima facie relevant to the quantification of damages and the central issue of loss of profits claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's objection that its financial statements are irrelevant was rejected, as these documents are necessary for the defendant to prepare its own expert report, to assess and potentially rebut the plaintiff's calculation of damages, and to ensure a fair trial. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant, ordering the plaintiff to comply with the discovery request and make the documents available for inspection, or to state on oath if such...

Court Disposition

Application to compel further and better discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to comply with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the defendant's notice and to pay costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff/respondent is directed to comply with paragraph 4 and 5 of the notice dated 30 March 2021 given by the defendant/applicant in terms of Rule 35(3) and (6).
  • The respondent must make available for inspection and copying the documents specified in paragraph 4 and 5 of the notice within sixty (60) days of this order, or state on oath within sixty (60) days that such documents or tape recordings are not in the plaintiff's possession, stating their whereabouts if known.