Thompson and Another v Heinsen and Another (A691/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 359 (10 July 2019)

Thompson and Another v Heinsen and Another (A691/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 359 (10 July 2019)

The court found that the issues raised by the applicants had already been addressed in the initial judgment, which clearly distinguished between the claims against each respondent and explained the absence of liability for the first respondent. The respondents' arguments were found to have merit, particularly regarding the lack of pleading for breach of mandate and the first respondent's non-involvement in the settlement agreement. However, the court accepted that the ground relating to the ostensible existence of a dispute of fact justified the granting of leave to appeal, as it met the threshold set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 359
Parties
Applicant: Catherine Helen Thompson; Applicant: Couples Investment CC; Respondent: Krugel Heinsen; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2019
Case Number
A691/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted on the ground relating to the ostensible existence of a dispute of fact.
Judges
Nair
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Breach of Contract, Mandate Liability, Dispute of Fact
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Breach of Contract Mandate Liability Dispute of Fact

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Helen Thompson

Applicant

Couples Investment CC

Applicant

Krugel Heinsen

Respondent

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in dismissing the application without considering the two separate claims individually.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent was liable despite not being a party to the agreement between applicants and second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent breached the mandate by negligently paying out money on demand of the second respondent's attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues raised by the applicants had already been addressed in the initial judgment, which clearly distinguished between the claims against each respondent and explained the absence of liability for the first respondent. The respondents' arguments were found to have merit, particularly regarding the lack of pleading for breach of mandate and the first respondent's non-involvement in the settlement agreement. However, the court accepted that the ground relating to the ostensible existence of a dispute of fact justified the granting of leave to appeal, as it met the threshold set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted on the ground relating to the ostensible existence of a dispute of fact.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted on the ground raised in paragraph 11 of the application for leave to appeal.