Van Heerden & Brummer Inc v Bath (356/2020) [2021] ZASCA 80 (11 June 2021)

Van Heerden & Brummer Inc v Bath (356/2020) [2021] ZASCA 80 (11 June 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription in terms of s 12(3) of the Prescription Act commences when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor obtains legal certainty or the full extent of damages. The respondent had knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for professional negligence against the appellant by at least 26 September 2012, following consultations and communications regarding the invalidity of the antenuptial contract. The running of prescription is not postponed until the outcome of an appeal or until the creditor appreciates the legal consequences. As more than...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 80
Parties
Appellant: Van Heerden & Brummer Inc; Respondent: Harry Mark Deon Bath
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2021
Case Number
356/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed as prescribed.
Judges
Petse, Mbha, Zondi, Kgoele, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Professional Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Running of Prescription, Knowledge of Debt, Legal Certainty
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Professional Negligence Breach of Mandate Running of Prescription Knowledge of Debt Legal Certainty

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Heerden & Brummer Inc

Appellant

Harry Mark Deon Bath

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription commence to run in respect of the respondent's claim for damages against the appellant for professional negligence.
  2. 2 Does knowledge of legal consequences or legal certainty affect the running of prescription under s 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Was the respondent's claim prescribed when summons was served on 2 February 2017.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription in terms of s 12(3) of the Prescription Act commences when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor obtains legal certainty or the full extent of damages. The respondent had knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for professional negligence against the appellant by at least 26 September 2012, following consultations and communications regarding the invalidity of the antenuptial contract. The running of prescription is not postponed until the outcome of an appeal or until the creditor appreciates the legal consequences. As more than...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: '2.1 The first defendant’s special plea is upheld with costs. 2.2 The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs.'