KPMG v Securefin

Last updated

KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd and Another, [1] potentially a landmark case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) [2] on 17 February 2009, with judgment handed down on 13 March. It could herald a new era in the interpretation of contracts in South Africa.

Contents

Facts

Securefin instituted an action in the High Court, claiming damages from KPMG for breach of contract. KPMG denied Securefin's interpretation of the contract. After a separation of issues, the High Court heard oral evidence. Much of the evidence dealt with the interpretation of the contract. Each party called an expert on the issue, and they testified for about fourteen days. The factual witnesses also spent most of their time dealing with interpretative issues.

The High Court ultimately determined the various issues in favour of the respondents and issued a declaratory order.

Judgment

In an appeal to the SCA, Harms JA deemed it necessary to make several points about the role of expert evidence in matters concerning interpretation:

  1. The integration (or parol evidence) rule was frequently being ignored by practitioners and seldom enforced by trial courts.
  2. Interpretation is a matter of law, not of fact, and accordingly interpretation is a matter for the court, not for witnesses.
  3. The rules about the admissibility of evidence on interpretation do not depend on the nature of the document, whether statute, contract or patent.
  4. To the extent that outside evidence is admissible to contextualise the document in order to establish its "factual matrix" or purpose, or for the purposes of identification, it has to be used as conservatively as possible. There is no merit, wrote Harms, in trying to distinguish between background circumstances and surrounding circumstances; this distinction is artificial and confusing, with the result that everything tends to be admitted. The terms "context" or "factual matrix" ought to his mind to suffice. [3]

The courts had made no attempt, found Harms, to curtail the "growing and undesirable" practice of allowing expert witnesses to testify as to the meaning of a contract. An expert could be asked relevant questions based on assumptions or hypotheses put by counsel as to the meaning of a document, but the expert, and any other witnesses, could not be asked about the meaning of the document. The witness (expert or otherwise) could also not be cross-examined on the meaning of the document or on the validity of the hypothesis about its meaning. [4]

Nevertheless, the SCA upheld the High Court judgment. [5]

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. A collective settlement is a settlement of multiple similar legal cases. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

Parol evidence rule Rule in the common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce

The parol evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract. The rule also prevents parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Daubert Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

<i>Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society</i>

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society[1997] UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts.

Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSC 44 is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts, raised on appeal from a Commercial Court hearing in 2009.

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

South African contract law

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", which is itself rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.

Coopers & Lybrand and Others v Bryant is an important case in South African contract law, particularly in the area of contractual interpretation. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Joubert JA, EM Grosskopf JA, MT Steyn JA, Nienaber JA and Howie JA on 15 May 1995, with judgment handed down on 30 May.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.

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.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

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.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ 2009 (4) SA 399 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Harms DP, Cloete JA, Lewis JA, Ponnan JA and Snyders JA.
  3. ↑ Paras 38–39.
  4. ↑ Para 40.
  5. ↑ Para 46.
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.