Von Der Au v Geoplan Materials Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (2016/49683) [2018] ZAGPPHC 390 (18 May 2018)

Von Der Au v Geoplan Materials Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (2016/49683) [2018] ZAGPPHC 390 (18 May 2018)

The court found that while the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim are poorly drafted and contain several vague and embarrassing aspects, they do not fail to disclose a cause of action on every reasonable interpretation. The defects identified, including lack of quantification of damages and insufficient particularity regarding the oral agreement, are curable by amendment. The court held that it would be unduly harsh and prejudicial to strike out the claim entirely when an amendment could address the deficiencies. The Plaintiff is therefore afforded leave to amend the Particulars of Claim within ten days. The application for condonation for late filing of the exception and strike out...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 390
Parties
Plaintiff: Eric Von Der Au; First Defendant: Geoplan Materials Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Second Defendant: Geoplan Laboratories North (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Case Number
2016/49683
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Application for Condonation and Strike Out Under Rule 30 a and Rule 23(1)
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; Plaintiff afforded leave to amend Particulars of Claim; Plaintiff to pay Second Defendant's costs for the application.
Judges
Nochumsohn
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Rule 18 Compliance, Vague and Embarrassing, Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Rule 18 Compliance Vague and Embarrassing Amendment of Particulars of Claim

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

Parties

Eric Von Der Au

Plaintiff

Geoplan Materials Engineering (Pty) Ltd

First Defendant

Geoplan Laboratories North (Pty) Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Application for Condonation and Strike Out Under Rule 30 a and Rule 23(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim are so vague and embarrassing as to be excipiable and liable to be struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's pleadings comply with Rule 18(6) and Rule 18(10) regarding sufficient particularity and quantification of damages.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to amend the Particulars of Claim to cure defects.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim are poorly drafted and contain several vague and embarrassing aspects, they do not fail to disclose a cause of action on every reasonable interpretation. The defects identified, including lack of quantification of damages and insufficient particularity regarding the oral agreement, are curable by amendment. The court held that it would be unduly harsh and prejudicial to strike out the claim entirely when an amendment could address the deficiencies. The Plaintiff is therefore afforded leave to amend the Particulars of Claim within ten days. The application for condonation for late filing of the exception and strike out...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; Plaintiff afforded leave to amend Particulars of Claim; Plaintiff to pay Second Defendant's costs for the application.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late launching of the exception and application to strike out in terms of Rule 30A is granted, without any costs order relating thereto.
  • The Plaintiff is afforded leave to deliver a Notice of Intention to Amend the Particulars of Claim within ten days from the date of this Order.