, IRM1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
DUE DATE: 17 APRIL 2026
________________________________________________________________________
Case Summary: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
1. Facts of the Case
The case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (2024) ZASCA 90 concerns a
property transaction that resulted in a significant financial loss due to cyber fraud,
specifically a Business Email Compromise (BEC) scam.
Judith Mary Hawarden (the respondent) entered into an agreement to purchase immovable
property for approximately R6 million. The seller appointed Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc
(ENS), a firm of attorneys, as the conveyancers responsible for handling the transfer process.
As part of the transaction, Hawarden was required to pay the purchase price into ENS’s
trust account (ENS v Hawarden 2024).
Hawarden initially paid a deposit successfully after verifying the banking details with the
estate agent. However, when it came to paying the outstanding balance (approximately
R5.5 million), she received an email that appeared to come from ENS. This email contained
banking details for payment, but unknown to her, fraudsters had intercepted
communications and altered the banking details (ENS v Hawarden 2024).
Relying on the email, Hawarden transferred the funds into the fraudulent account. The
money was irretrievably lost. Importantly, there were no obvious warning signs indicating
that the email was fraudulent, and Hawarden acted in good faith.
Evidence before the court showed that ENS was aware of the growing prevalence of cyber
fraud in conveyancing transactions. Despite this knowledge, ENS failed to adequately warn
DUE DATE: 17 APRIL 2026
________________________________________________________________________
Case Summary: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
1. Facts of the Case
The case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (2024) ZASCA 90 concerns a
property transaction that resulted in a significant financial loss due to cyber fraud,
specifically a Business Email Compromise (BEC) scam.
Judith Mary Hawarden (the respondent) entered into an agreement to purchase immovable
property for approximately R6 million. The seller appointed Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc
(ENS), a firm of attorneys, as the conveyancers responsible for handling the transfer process.
As part of the transaction, Hawarden was required to pay the purchase price into ENS’s
trust account (ENS v Hawarden 2024).
Hawarden initially paid a deposit successfully after verifying the banking details with the
estate agent. However, when it came to paying the outstanding balance (approximately
R5.5 million), she received an email that appeared to come from ENS. This email contained
banking details for payment, but unknown to her, fraudsters had intercepted
communications and altered the banking details (ENS v Hawarden 2024).
Relying on the email, Hawarden transferred the funds into the fraudulent account. The
money was irretrievably lost. Importantly, there were no obvious warning signs indicating
that the email was fraudulent, and Hawarden acted in good faith.
Evidence before the court showed that ENS was aware of the growing prevalence of cyber
fraud in conveyancing transactions. Despite this knowledge, ENS failed to adequately warn
