International Shipping v Bentley

International Shipping v Bentley
International Shipping v Bentley
Court	Appellate Division
Full case name	International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v C. F. Bentley
Decided	10 November 1989
Citation(s)	1990 1 SA 680 (A)
Court membership
Judges sitting	Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA
Case opinions
Decision by	Corbett CJ
Keywords
	Law of delict, Causation, Remoteness of damages

Last updated June 06, 2022

International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley^[1] is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.^[2]

Facts

The appellant, International Shipping, a company carrying on the business of financiers and shippers, agreed to make certain financial facilities available to the D Group of companies in early 1976. The respondent, Bentley, was appointed auditor to the D Group in November 1977. In March 1979, Bentley issued reports in respect of the financial statements of each of the companies comprising the D Group, as well as its financial statements, for the year ending 20 December 1978. In each of these reports, which were not qualified in any way, Bentley stated that he had examined the financial statements in question and had complied with the requirements of section 300 of the Companies Act,^[3] and that, in his opinion, the statements fairly represented the financial position of the company as at 20 December 1978, and the results of its operations for the period then ended, in the manner required by the Companies Act.

International Shipping continued to provide these financial facilities until the liquidation of the companies comprising the D Group in April 1981. At the time of such liquidation, the total indebtedness of the D Group to International Shipping amounted to R977,318, of which only the sum of R593,826 was recovered. International Shipping thus sustained a loss in the amount of R383,492.

In April 1982, International Shipping instituted an action for damages against Bentley in a Local Division, alleging

that the aforementioned financial statements were materially false and misleading in a number of respects;
that, in so reporting, Bentley had acted fraudulently or, alternatively, negligently towards International Shipping, which had relied thereon in reviewing and deciding to maintain and increase the facilities accorded to the D Group;
that, had the 1978 financial statements fairly presented the financial position of the D Group and its constituent companies, International Shipping would have terminated the facilities and have required the Group to make good its indebtedness; and
that the loss sustained by International Shipping constituted damage which Bentley was accordingly liable to compensate it.

The action was dismissed by the court a quo.

Judgment

International Shipping thereafter brought the instant appeal in which the court held

that the financial statements were, to some extent, false and misleading;
that there was no reason for interfering with the court a quo's finding that fraud had not been established; but
that negligence had been established in regard to some aspects of the financial statements; and
that unlawfulness had been established in that it could not be said that Bentley had properly complied with his statutory duties in terms of the Companies Act.

The only remaining issue was that of causation.

As far as factual causation was concerned, the court held that the respondent's negligent report on the 1978 financial statements unquestionably constituted a causa sine qua non of the appellant's loss, since a proper and non-negligent performance of his duties as auditor would have obviated the appellant's ultimate loss. With regard to legal causation, the court held that there were a number of factors which tended to separate cause and effect in the instant case, viz

the time factor, in that two years had elapsed between the respondent's reporting and the loss;
the decision by the appellant to provide a support programme for the D Group at a stage when it already knew that the Group's financial situation was fairly bleak;
the fact that the appellant allowed the D Group's indebtedness to escalate;
the changed relationship between the parties as a result of the implementation of the support programme, in that the appellant and the D Group ceased to deal at arm's length with each other, and the appellant became intimately involved in the administration (or lack thereof) of the D Group;
the fraud committed by the managing director of the D Group, which played an important part in causing the financial loss which the appellant ultimately incurred;
the fact that, to some extent, the appellant did not rely on the 1978 financial statements prepared by the respondent; and, lastly,
the foreseeability of the support programme.

The support programme amounted to uninhibited lending to the D Group without added security, which was the real cause of the appellant's loss. Such a situation was hardly foreseeable in March 1979.

The court held, further, having regard to the above-mentioned factors, that the ultimate loss suffered by the appellant was too remote for legal liability on the respondent's part to arise. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division, in International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley, confirmed.

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Delict is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centred on the notion of wrongful conduct.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104–67 (text)(PDF), 109 Stat. 737 ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States, affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses.

Misrepresentation Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong.

Holmdene Brickworks (Pty) Ltd v Roberts Construction Co Ltd, decided by Corbett CJ, is an important case in South African contract law, specifically in the area of breach.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with ‘the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered’. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict ‘in general terms [...] as a civil wrong’, and more narrowly as ‘wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person’. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels ACJ, Trollip JA, Hofmeyr JA, Miller JA and Trengove AJA on 15 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 21 March.

Minister of Police v Skosana is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 19 March 1976, with judgment handed down on 27 September. The judges were Wessels JA, Jansen JA, Corbett JA, Kotzé JA and Viljoen AJA.

Smit v Abrahams is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of delict and on the question of negligence.

Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Africa Bpk is an important case in South African law of delict, in particular in the area of negligent misstatements. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 5, 1979, with judgment handed down on May 25, 1979.

Whether providing services as an accountant or auditor, a certified public accountant (CPA) owes a duty of care to the client and third parties who foreseeably rely on the accountant's work. Accountants can be sued for negligence or malpractice in the performance of their duties, and for fraud.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence. The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman. In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Hearse was found liable for damages to Dr Cherry's estate under the Wrongs Act 1936. Hearse sought to reclaim damages from Chapman due to his alleged contributory negligence; Chapman was found liable to one quarter of the damages. Chapman appealed the case to the High Court of Australia on August 8, 1961 but it was dismissed as the results of his negligence were deemed reasonably foreseeable. A duty of care was established between Chapman and the deceased and his claim of novus actus interveniens was rejected. Dr Cherry was considered a ‘rescuer’ and his respective rights remained.

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.

References

Case law

International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 1 SA 680 (A).

Legislation

Companies Act 61 of 1973.

Notes

↑ 1990 1 SA 680 (A).
↑ "South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal – International Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd. v Bentley (138/89)" (PDF). SAFLII.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
↑ Act 61 of 1973.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] 1990 1 SA 680 (A).

[2] "South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal – International Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd. v Bentley (138/89)" (PDF). SAFLII.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[3] Act 61 of 1973.

[1]

[2]

[3]