- Flynote
-
Prescription: firm of attorneys sued for breach of mandate arising out of
drafting an antenuptial contract subsequently found invalid by court – whether
prescription begins to run on date of judgment declaring the antenuptial contract
invalid – prescription begins to run as soon as the creditor acquires knowledge of the
facts necessary to institute action –whether costs of two counsel should be awarded.
Loading PDF...
This document is 272.2 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 9
Judgment 7
- Claasen v Bester (872/2010) [2011] ZASCA 197 (23 November 2011)
- Fluxmans Incorporated v Levenson (523 of 2015) [2016] ZASCA 183 (29 November 2016)
- H B v J B (952/2012) [2014] ZASCA 14 (24 March 2014)
- Links v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Northern Cape Province [2016] ZACC 10 (30 March 2016)
- Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO (230/2006) [2006] ZASCA 98 (8 September 2006)
- Newlands Surgical Clinic (Pty) Ltd v Peninsula Eye Clinic (Pty) Ltd (86/2014) [2015] ZASCA 25 (20 March 2015)
- Yellow Star Properties 1020 (Pty) Ltd v Department of Development Planning and Local Government (Gauteng) (549/2007) [2009] ZASCA 25 (27 March 2009)
Legislation 2
Documents citing this one 5
Judgment 5
- Barnard v Schoonraad, Delport & Van der Merwe Inc (3679/2010) [2024] ZAECPEHC 1 (23 January 2024)
- Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969 of 2020) [2022] ZASCA 47 (8 April 2022)
- Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22) [2023] ZACC 46 (18 December 2023)
- Makhoba v Standard Bank of South Africa (845/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 213 (9 November 2023)
- Van Heerden & Brummer Inc v Bath (356/2020) [2021] ZASCA 80 (11 June 2021)