Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh (13225/2010) [2019] ZAKZDHC 28 (5 November 2019)

Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh (13225/2010) [2019] ZAKZDHC 28 (5 November 2019)

The court found that the defendant's counter-claim was based in delict but relied exclusively on the breach of contractual duties owed by the plaintiff. The defendant did not plead an independent cause of action unrelated to the contract. Clause 6 of the agreement expressly excluded liability for indirect or consequential damages, including those arising from negligence, and limited direct damages to the purchase price of the goods. The defendant conceded these limitations. South African law, as established in Lillicrap and subsequent cases, does not permit Aquilian liability where the negligence relied on consists solely in the breach of contract. The defendant's claim was for pure...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZDHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Louis de la Rey Hattingh
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2019
Case Number
13225/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant's counter-claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Henriques
Legal Topics
Contractual Limitation of Liability, Pure Economic Loss, Negligent Advice, Exclusion of Claims, Concurrent Liability, Duty of Care
Commercial and Corporate Delict Contractual Limitation of Liability Pure Economic Loss Negligent Advice Exclusion of Claims Concurrent Liability Duty of Care

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Louis de la Rey Hattingh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's counter-claim in delict is legally sustainable in light of the written agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether clause 6 of the agreement excludes or limits the defendant's claim for damages based on negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has pleaded an independent delictual cause of action unrelated to the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's counter-claim was based in delict but relied exclusively on the breach of contractual duties owed by the plaintiff. The defendant did not plead an independent cause of action unrelated to the contract. Clause 6 of the agreement expressly excluded liability for indirect or consequential damages, including those arising from negligence, and limited direct damages to the purchase price of the goods. The defendant conceded these limitations. South African law, as established in Lillicrap and subsequent cases, does not permit Aquilian liability where the negligence relied on consists solely in the breach of contract. The defendant's claim was for pure...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant's counter-claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for payment of the sum of R698,891.78.
  • Interest on the abovementioned amount at the rate of 11.5% per annum from 30 September 2010 to date of payment.