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
Van Zyl and Another v Cloete and Another (3384/2017;2876/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 28 (14 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to consolidate two related actions, finding the issues were different and consolidation would prejudice the first respondent.
Van Heerden v Road Accident Fund (845/2021) [2022] ZAECQBHC 37 (4 October 2022)
The High Court held that medical-scheme payment of the plaintiff’s past medical expenses did not relieve the Road Accident Fund of liability.
Eckard and Another v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited and Others (74991/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 392 (30 July 2020)
The High Court allowed a second applicant to serve a late third party notice on its insurer for contingent indemnity, but dismissed the first applicant for lack of standing.
Magic Eye Trading 77 CC v Santam Limited (775/2018) [2019] ZASCA 188; 2022 (6) SA 120 (SCA) (10 December 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a claim for indemnification under an insurance contract only arises when liability to the third party in a fixed amount has been established, either by agreement or by court order. Until then, the insured's right to claim is merely contingent and does not constitute a 'debt' for purposes of prescription under the Prescription Act. The court distinguished the facts from Truck and General Insurance Co Ltd v Verulam Fuel Distributors CC, finding that the latter did not overrule the principles established in Pereira and related cases. The appeal succeeded bec…
Source excerpt
Bunton and Another v Coetzee and Another (20794/2014) [2016] ZASCA 31 (23 March 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a pre-trial agreement on procedure should have been respected, and reinstated an indemnity order against the insurer.
Hollard Insurance Company Ltd v Unitrans Fuel and Chemical (Pty) Ltd and Another (A5052/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 87 (8 May 2012)
The High Court held that section 156 of the Insolvency Act did not extend the insurer’s liability beyond the insurance contract, and the appeal was upheld.
Coetzee v Bunton and Bunton v Auto & General Insurance Co Limited (23049/2002) [2007] ZAGPHC 66 (8 June 2007)
A motor collision claim succeeded against the driver, but the court dismissed an attempted insurance indemnity claim brought through an irregular counter-claim procedure.
Jacobs NO v Braaff (603/05) [2006] ZASCA 115; [2006] SCA 142 (RSA); [2007] 4 All SA 966 (SCA) (24 November 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a family car-use agreement included a tacit term requiring the owner to submit an insurance claim for the driver’s indemnity.
Mcclain v H Mohamed & Associates (224/99) [2003] ZAWCHC 21; [2003] 3 All SA 707 (C) (5 June 2003)
The High Court held attorneys liable for breaching their mandate by failing to investigate Avis insurance cover that could have supported the plaintiff’s claim.
Unitrans Freight (Pty) Ltd v Santawi Ltd (13515/02) [2002] ZAGPHC 28 (13 September 2002)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim, holding that section 156 of the Insolvency Act did not create a cause of action on these facts.
Explore more
