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
Govender and Another v Advance Pools CC (NCT/107447/2018/75(1) (b)) [2018] ZANCT 106 (10 October 2018)
The Tribunal granted leave to refer a consumer complaint about defective pool installation, finding the dispute substantial and the referral arguable.
Officescape Interior Contractors v Waymark Infotech (Pty) Ltd (1344/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 152 (2 April 2015)
The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application, finding the defendant had raised a bona fide defence relating to defective workmanship and the payment certificate.
Goosen v van Blerk NO (3123/1999) [2013] ZAECPEHC 28 (11 June 2013)
The court refused rectification of a dam-construction contract and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, but upheld the defendant’s counterclaim for defective workmanship.
Lawson v Schmidhauser Electrical CC (7596/2007) [2012] ZAWCHC 146 (1 August 2012)
High Court quantum judgment in an electrical installation dispute. The plaintiff recovered damages for defective workmanship, labour overreaching, and a deposit refund, but not all claimed expenses.
SPX Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Betterect (Pty) Ltd (35421/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 234 (15 December 2010)
The High Court held that SPX failed to prove Betterect’s workmanship caused shaft failures; the evidence pointed to a design fault, so the claim was dismissed with costs.
Barloworld Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Zed Quarrying (Pty) Ltd and Another (6656/08) [2008] ZAKZHC 82 (28 October 2008)
The court found that the defendants had disclosed sufficient facts and grounds for a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claims, including allegations of defective workmanship, gross negligence, and the applicability of contractual exemption clauses. The technical issue of the plaintiff's failure to plead the nexus between the exclusionary clauses and the specific claims was considered arguable. The defendants' intended counterclaim for damages incurred in hiring substitute equipment was not clearly excluded by the contractual terms, particularly in relation to damages flowing directly from…
Source excerpt
Explore more
