Van As v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (34447/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 288 (5 May 2015)

Van As v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (34447/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 288 (5 May 2015)

The court found that the defendant undertook repairs to the plaintiff's perimeter alarm system under an oral agreement, which required the work to be performed in accordance with industry standards and to be fit for purpose. The defendant's technician wired the beams 'normally open' and installed resistors in the control panel rather than end-of-line, contrary to industry standards. This resulted in the alarm system failing to activate when the perimeter was breached during the robbery. The court rejected the defendant's reliance on written agreements and disclaimer clauses, finding they did not apply to ad hoc maintenance. The evidence established that the robbers most likely entered via...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 288
Parties
Plaintiff: Eugene Van As; Defendant: ADT Security (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 May 2015
Case Number
34447/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Defendant declared liable for damages arising from breach of oral agreement to repair perimeter alarm system.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Breach of Oral Contract, Security Services Liability, Industry Standard in Alarm Installation, Negligence, Quantum Separation, Expert Evidence
Commercial and Corporate Delict Breach of Oral Contract Security Services Liability Industry Standard in Alarm Installation Negligence Quantum Separation Expert Evidence

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Van As

Plaintiff

ADT Security (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the oral agreement to repair the perimeter alarm system.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct in wiring the alarm system contrary to industry standards constituted negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the breach caused the plaintiff's damages from the robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant undertook repairs to the plaintiff's perimeter alarm system under an oral agreement, which required the work to be performed in accordance with industry standards and to be fit for purpose. The defendant's technician wired the beams 'normally open' and installed resistors in the control panel rather than end-of-line, contrary to industry standards. This resulted in the alarm system failing to activate when the perimeter was breached during the robbery. The court rejected the defendant's reliance on written agreements and disclaimer clauses, finding they did not apply to ad hoc maintenance. The evidence established that the robbers most likely entered via...

Court Disposition

Defendant declared liable for damages arising from breach of oral agreement to repair perimeter alarm system.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable for such damage as the plaintiff is able to prove arising from the defendant's breach of the oral agreement concluded between the parties in terms whereof the defendant effected repairs to the plaintiff's perimeter alarm system on 26 January 2012.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the qualifying fees of the plaintiff's expert witness Mr. Zeyn Khan, the costs of the private interpreter employed by the plaintiff, and the costs of senior counsel.