South Africa Case Law

GR Sutherland and Associates (Pty) Ltd v V & A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (7471/2021)

GR Sutherland and Associates (Pty) Ltd v V & A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (7471/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 67 (11 April 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7471/2021

Judge

Binns-Ward

The applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for setting aside the arbitration agreement under section 3(2) of the Arbitration Act. The court found that arbitration agreements are generally entered into for the mutual benefit of the parties and should not be set aside without a truly compelling reason. The existence of parallel proceedings and potential for multiple actions did not justify depriving the respondent of the benefit of arbitration, as other parties remain bound by separate arbitration agreements and the risk of fragmented litigation persists. The contractual limitation and inde…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement
• Setting Aside Arbitration
• Good Cause Requirement
• Contractual Liability Limitation
• Pure Economic Loss

Nampak Products t/a Nampak Liquid Purchasing v Dairybelle (Pty) Ltd (72512/13, 72513/13)

Nampak Products t/a Nampak Liquid Purchasing v Dairybelle (Pty) Ltd (72512/13, 72513/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1159 (10 October 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

72512/13, 72513/13

Judge

P.M. Mabuse

The High Court granted the defendant leave to amend its plea and counterclaim, finding the amendments bona fide and not excipiable, with costs awarded against the plaintiff.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Withdrawal Of Admissions
• Contractual Liability Limitation
• Exception To Pleadings
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Withdrawal-of-admissions

Deacon v Planet Fitness Holdings (Pty) Ltd (8197/2012)

Deacon v Planet Fitness Holdings (Pty) Ltd (8197/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 721; 2016 (2) SA 236 (GP) (6 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8197/2012

Judge

A.A. Louw

High Court judgment dismissing a gym member’s delict claim after a fall at a barrier, finding no legal duty to warn and upholding the liability exclusion clause.

• Exemption Clause
• Wrongfulness
• Public Policy
• Duty Of Care
• Contractual Liability Limitation
• Delict

Anglogold Ashanti Limited v Fluor SA (Pty) Ltd (06/16296)

Anglogold Ashanti Limited v Fluor SA (Pty) Ltd (06/16296) [2008] ZAGPHC 181 (13 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

06/16296

Judge

Van Oosten

The court found that clause 5.1 of Fluor's tender documents, which excluded liability for damages except as set out in a definitive written contract, formed part of the agreement between the parties. Anglogold's representative was aware of the clause and, by commencing with the works and failing to expressly reject the clause, Anglogold acquiesced to its inclusion. The clause operated as a transitional provision pending finalisation of outstanding terms, and its duration extended until the alleged breach occurred. The court rejected Anglogold's argument for unlimited liability, finding that b…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Contractual Liability Limitation
• Exemption Clause
• Implied Terms
• Contractual Acceptance