IRM1501
Assignment 2
Semester 1
Due 17 April 2026
,SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 421/2023
In the matter between:
EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERG INC. APPELLANT
and
JUDITH MARY HAWARDEN RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (Case no 421/23)
[2024] ZASCA 90 (10 June 2024)
Coram: Ponnan, Dambuza and Goosen JJA and Tlaletsi and Dawood AJJA
Heard: 8 May 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email; publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and released to SAFLII. The time and date for hand-down is deemed to be
11h00 on 10 June 2024.
Summary: Delictual claim – claim for pure economic loss caused by omission –
wrongfulness – risk of indeterminate liability – vulnerability to risk – plaintiff could
reasonably have taken steps to protect against the risk.
, 2
ORDER
On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (Mudau J,
sitting as court of first instance):
1 The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include the costs of two
counsel where so employed.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following
order:
‘The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of
two counsel where so employed.’
JUDGMENT
Dawood AJA (Ponnan, Dambuza and Goosen JJA and Tlaletsi AJA
concurring):
[1] The appellant, Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc. (ENS), appeals against the
whole judgment and order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg,
per Mudau J (the high court). The high court allowed the delictual claim for pure
economic loss by the respondent, Ms Hawarden, in the sum of R5.5 million against
ENS, based on an omission. The appeal is with the leave of the high court.
Background
[2] Ms Hawarden purchased a property from the Davidge Pitts Family Trust (the
trust) for the sum of R6 million on 23 May 2019. Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd
(PGP), the estate agent mandated by the seller to market the property, sent Ms
Hawarden an email on 23 May 2019 at 09h15, congratulating her on the purchase
and asking her to deposit R500 000 into its trust account. The email contained a
Assignment 2
Semester 1
Due 17 April 2026
,SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 421/2023
In the matter between:
EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERG INC. APPELLANT
and
JUDITH MARY HAWARDEN RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (Case no 421/23)
[2024] ZASCA 90 (10 June 2024)
Coram: Ponnan, Dambuza and Goosen JJA and Tlaletsi and Dawood AJJA
Heard: 8 May 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email; publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and released to SAFLII. The time and date for hand-down is deemed to be
11h00 on 10 June 2024.
Summary: Delictual claim – claim for pure economic loss caused by omission –
wrongfulness – risk of indeterminate liability – vulnerability to risk – plaintiff could
reasonably have taken steps to protect against the risk.
, 2
ORDER
On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (Mudau J,
sitting as court of first instance):
1 The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include the costs of two
counsel where so employed.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following
order:
‘The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of
two counsel where so employed.’
JUDGMENT
Dawood AJA (Ponnan, Dambuza and Goosen JJA and Tlaletsi AJA
concurring):
[1] The appellant, Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc. (ENS), appeals against the
whole judgment and order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg,
per Mudau J (the high court). The high court allowed the delictual claim for pure
economic loss by the respondent, Ms Hawarden, in the sum of R5.5 million against
ENS, based on an omission. The appeal is with the leave of the high court.
Background
[2] Ms Hawarden purchased a property from the Davidge Pitts Family Trust (the
trust) for the sum of R6 million on 23 May 2019. Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd
(PGP), the estate agent mandated by the seller to market the property, sent Ms
Hawarden an email on 23 May 2019 at 09h15, congratulating her on the purchase
and asking her to deposit R500 000 into its trust account. The email contained a
