Reiter Foods and Services CC v Cattle Baron Steak Franchising Pty Ltd (10281/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 642 (18 February 2010)

Reiter Foods and Services CC v Cattle Baron Steak Franchising Pty Ltd (10281/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 642 (18 February 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not comply with Rule 18(10) because the spreadsheet amalgamated various categories of damages, including items that retained value and belonged to the plaintiff, without deducting their value from the claim. This formulation prevented the defendant from making an informed evaluation of the quantum claimed, defeating the object of the Rule. The vagueness caused prejudice to the defendant, inhibiting its trial preparation and ability to make an informed tender. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 642
Parties
Plaintiff: Reiter Foods and Services CC; Defendant: Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2010
Case Number
10281/08
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.
Judges
S J Koen
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 10, Damages Quantification, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 10 Damages Quantification Exception Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reiter Foods and Services CC

Plaintiff

Cattle Baron Steak Franchising (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for wasted costs is formulated in compliance with Rule 18(10).
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and prejudicial to the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can reasonably assess the quantum of damages claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not comply with Rule 18(10) because the spreadsheet amalgamated various categories of damages, including items that retained value and belonged to the plaintiff, without deducting their value from the claim. This formulation prevented the defendant from making an informed evaluation of the quantum claimed, defeating the object of the Rule. The vagueness caused prejudice to the defendant, inhibiting its trial preparation and ability to make an informed tender. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 20 days.