Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nedbank Ltd v Chlorcape (Pty) Ltd (2022-056297) [2024] ZAGPJHC 218 (4 March 2024)
The High Court upheld three exceptions to particulars of claim in a banking delict case, struck out claims against Nedbank, and granted leave to amend.
Penquin Airtime (Pty) Ltd v FirstRand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank (20358 / 2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 776 (4 December 2021)
The court dismissed FNB’s exception to a claim for pure economic loss arising from alleged failures to monitor a suspect bank account and prevent withdrawals.
Spar Group Limited v Absa Bank Limited (74870/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 259 (14 August 2020)
The High Court held Absa liable in delict to Spar for reversing EFT debit pull payments without proper enquiry, causing pure economic loss.
Peterson NO and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (2011 (5) SA 484 (GNP)) [2011] ZAGPPHC 127; 24067/2010 (27 July 2011)
The court held that the amended particulars of claim, as pleaded by the applicants, do prima facie disclose a cause of action for pure economic loss based on omission by the bank. The facts alleged establish the element of wrongfulness, as the bank may owe a legal duty in relation to the opening and monitoring of accounts, especially in light of statutory obligations under FICA and internal protocols. The determination of whether such a duty exists in this novel context is fact-bound and should be evaluated at trial with the benefit of evidence. The particulars of claim are sufficiently clear…
Source excerpt
First National Bank of SA Ltd v Quality Tyres 1970 (Pty) Ltd (434/1993) [1995] ZASCA 65; 1995 (3) SA 556 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 616 (A) (30 May 1995)
The court held that the respondent failed to prove ownership of the cheque, so its delict claim against the collecting bank could not succeed.
Explore more
