THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
Hay Management Consultants v P3 Management Consultants

Supreme Court of Appeal -439/03 Hearing date: 23 November 2004
  Judgment date: 30 November 2004
Practice: jurisdiction – implied contractual submission – whether can be relied on in action not arising from the contract – weight to be attached to domicilium and choice of law clauses – submission by peregrinus in action by incola - whether sufficient of itself to found jurisdiction.
Media Summary of Judgment

From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

This media statement is released for informational purposes only. It does not form part of the Court’s judgment.

On 30 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Hay Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd v P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd.

The appeal was against a judgment of the Witwatersrand Local Division which dismissed a special plea to its jurisdiction to hear a claim by a local plaintiff against a foreign defendant. The plaintiff relied on an implied submission to jurisdiction deriving from a contract which regulated the business relationship between the parties. That contract contained a clause in which the defendant chose an address for the service of court process and writs of execution within the area of the court and a further clause in which the parties chose the law of South Africa as the governing law of their contract.

In its judgment on appeal the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the contractual submission to jurisdiction although its claim did not arise out of the contract;

  • whether the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction depended on the weight of the proved facts including the contents of the aforesaid clauses of the contract; those clauses were in favour of such a finding and the totality of the evidence established a submission;
  • submission by a foreign defendant in an action for money brought by a local plaintiff was of itself sufficient to found jurisdiction without the need for an additional recognised ground of jurisdiction or attachment of property belonging to the defendant.

The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.