Truter and Another v Deysel (043/05) [2006] ZASCA 16; 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA) (17 March 2006)

Truter and Another v Deysel (043/05) [2006] ZASCA 16; 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA) (17 March 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that for prescription to begin running under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, the creditor need only have knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arises, not knowledge of legal conclusions or expert opinions. In this case, the respondent knew the details of the operations performed, the harm suffered, and the identity of the debtors as early as 1994 or 1995. The subsequent expert opinion confirming negligence was not a new fact but evidence supporting a legal conclusion. Therefore, prescription began to run well before the respondent obtained the expert opinion, and the claim was prescribed by the time summons was issued in April 2000....

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 16
Parties
Appellant: Dr Rene Truter; Appellant: Dr Jan A Venter; Respondent: Marthinus Albertus Deysel
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Case Number
043/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription succeeds; respondent's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Harms, Zulman, Navsa, Mthiyane, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12, Medical Negligence, Special Plea, Knowledge of Facts, Cause of Action
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 12 Medical Negligence Special Plea Knowledge of Facts Cause of Action

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Rene Truter

Appellant

Dr Jan A Venter

Appellant

Marthinus Albertus Deysel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription begin to run in a claim for damages arising from alleged medical negligence under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act?
  2. 2 Does knowledge of the facts from which the debt arises require an expert opinion confirming negligence, or only knowledge of the material facts?
  3. 3 Was the respondent's claim prescribed at the time summons was issued?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that for prescription to begin running under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, the creditor need only have knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arises, not knowledge of legal conclusions or expert opinions. In this case, the respondent knew the details of the operations performed, the harm suffered, and the identity of the debtors as early as 1994 or 1995. The subsequent expert opinion confirming negligence was not a new fact but evidence supporting a legal conclusion. Therefore, prescription began to run well before the respondent obtained the expert opinion, and the claim was prescribed by the time summons was issued in April 2000....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription succeeds; respondent's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Cape High Court is set aside and replaced with the following order: 'The special plea of prescription is upheld and the plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.'