New Smal Construction Company (Pty) Ltd v Goodwin (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (01/14116) [2004] ZAGPHC 14 (20 August 2004)

New Smal Construction Company (Pty) Ltd v Goodwin (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (01/14116) [2004] ZAGPHC 14 (20 August 2004)

The court found that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff in terms of the lease agreement. The formula for calculating the amount due was agreed by the parties, and the number of parking bays ('a') was accepted as 87 based on the parties' longstanding agreement and the reliance theory. The expenses ('c') claimed by the defendant were not reasonably incurred in the conduct of a normal commercial parking garage business, as the premises were not operated as such during the relevant period. The plaintiff's amendment to its calculations, including a figure of zero for 'c', was allowed as it was supported by the evidence. The court held that interest should run from the date the...

Citation
[2004] ZAGPHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: New Smal Construction Company (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Goodwin (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2004
Case Number
01/14116
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount claimed, interest, and costs.
Judges
N.P. Willis
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Quantum of Damages, Mora Interest, Contractual Interpretation
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Lease Agreement Quantum of Damages Mora Interest Contractual Interpretation

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Smal Construction Company (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Goodwin (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff in terms of the written lease agreement.
  2. 2 How the quantum of the plaintiff's claim should be calculated according to the contractual formula.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's claimed expenses ('c') were reasonably incurred in the conduct of a normal commercial parking garage business.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff in terms of the lease agreement. The formula for calculating the amount due was agreed by the parties, and the number of parking bays ('a') was accepted as 87 based on the parties' longstanding agreement and the reliance theory. The expenses ('c') claimed by the defendant were not reasonably incurred in the conduct of a normal commercial parking garage business, as the premises were not operated as such during the relevant period. The plaintiff's amendment to its calculations, including a figure of zero for 'c', was allowed as it was supported by the evidence. The court held that interest should run from the date the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount claimed, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff R2,598,441.04.
  • The defendant is to pay R989,719.62, being mora interest on all sums outstanding calculated at the rate of 15.5% per annum from 1 April 2000 to 31 July 2004.