Van Rooyen v Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others (84775/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 19 (25 January 2016)

Van Rooyen v Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others (84775/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 19 (25 January 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is based on pure economic loss and that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The contract between the plaintiff and Riverspray defined their respective obligations, and the second defendant was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Vincent Van Rooyen; Defendant: Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Solid Building Contracting CC; Defendant: Dashdot Architects
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2016
Case Number
84775/2014
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)
Outcome
Exception upheld; claim against the second defendant struck out; costs awarded to the second defendant.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Pure Economic Loss, Aquilian Action, Wrongfulness, Contractual Matrix
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Particulars of Claim Pure Economic Loss Aquilian Action Wrongfulness Contractual Matrix

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Van Rooyen

Plaintiff

Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Solid Building Contracting CC

Defendant

Dashdot Architects

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the second defendant?
  2. 2 Can a subcontractor be held delictually liable to the plaintiff for pure economic loss in the absence of a direct contractual relationship?
  3. 3 Should the Aquilian remedy be extended to impose liability on the second defendant in these circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is based on pure economic loss and that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The contract between the plaintiff and Riverspray defined their respective obligations, and the second defendant was only a subcontractor to Riverspray. The court held that policy considerations do not require the extension of delictual liability to the second defendant in these circumstances. The principles established in Lillicrap and Country Cloud Trading dictate a conservative approach to extending Aquilian liability, especially where a contractual matrix exists. Accordingly, the exception...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; claim against the second defendant struck out; costs awarded to the second defendant.

Orders

  • The second defendant's exception is upheld.
  • The claim against the second defendant is struck out.