The High Court in Pretoria dealt with an application to amend BMW Financial Services’ particulars of claim and related counterapplications. The court held that the point in limine about authority was without merit, granted leave to amend, and dismissed the respondent’s counterapplications with costs on the attorney and client scale. The judgment also records that the parties were in protracted litigation arising from an instalment agreement and suretyship.
This appears to concern civil procedure, pleadings and costs, and may be relevant to practitioners dealing with amendments and challenges to authority.
Evidence from source
the point is without merit, particularly in light of the arguments raised about this being a settled area of our law. The Rule 28(4) application brief background
Supports: Summary claim that the authority point in limine was without merit.
1. Leave to amend the applicant's particulars of claim in accordance with the notice to amend in terms of Rule 28(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court dated 24 January 2022 is granted with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
Supports: Summary claim that leave to amend was granted with costs.
2. The respondent’s counterapplications are dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
Supports: Summary claim that the counterapplications were dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.