The respondent's attorneys sought further to justify the proposed
classifications on the basis that
*... there is a clear distinction between claimants who fall within the contractual class, and those who fall within the MPC class For instance: -
8.1 the contractual claimants class is comprised of claimants who concluded agreements directly with [the respondent and who predominantly seek rescission and restitution as a primary relief, whereas the MPCs do not have a direct contractual relationship with the respondent) and cannot seek rescission and restitution. The MPC's alleged claims are premised on 'pure' delictual claims, where there is no privity of contract involving the respondent)
am
Page 23
these two classes of claimants, which assert differing rights, are clearly distinguishable, and there are thus fundamental differences in the two classes' alleged causes of action, the relief sought, the bases for the alleged claims, and the burden of proof required There is a clear commonality between those individual claimants falling within the contractual claims class, which is not shared by those individual claimants that fall within the MPC class,
as most recently highlighted by the De Bruyn judgment (per Unterhalter J), claimants suing in delict (without any contractual privity/nexus with the respondent) or any other Steinhoff entity) face considerable obstacles in establishing the requirements for delictual liability. The MPCs alleged claims face a far more onerous burden of proof, and are required to demonstrate inter alia the existence of a duty of care owed by the respondent (and the breach thereof) wrongfulness, and causation, all of which the respondent) denies and disputes...
Zurück
