Robinson v Van Hulsteyn Feltham and Ford

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Appellate Division
• Judge: Innes CJ, Solomon JA, De Villiers JA, Kotzé JA and Wessels JA
• Judgment Date: 03 October 1924
• Citation: 1925 AD 12
• Hearing Date: 25 September 1924

Wessels, J.A.:

The Transvaal Provincial Division was asked by the appellant the petitioner in: the court below) to give tin order against the respondents, a firm of attorneys practising at Johannesburg, declaring that they acted wrongfully and unprofessionally in taking up the case for the Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Company against the appellant when at the time of the action and for many years past they had acted as the attorneys and legal advisers of the appellant and of the Randfontein group of companies in which the appellant had an interest. The court below came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to show that the respondents ever had any such confidential information or were ever treated in such a confidential manner as to disentitle them to act for the Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Company against the appellant and that he has failed to show that there was any breach of professional duty by them. The appellant contends that this conclusion is wrong. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the late JUDGE-PRESIDENT of the Transvaal Provincial Division and it is only necessary to state briefly the salient facts of the case.

(1) Sir Joseph Robinson was largely interested in and controlled the Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co., and the subsidiary companies known as the Robinson group.

(2) The legal work in connection with the formation and registration of the Randfontein Estates was done by the late Charles Leonard and when he left the Transvaal the legal work of the company was continued by the, respondents, Van Hulsteyn and Feltham, and after 1912 by the firm of Van Hulsteyn, Feltham and Ford.

(3) The two last-mentioned firms acted not only for the Randfontein Estates but also for the subsidiary companies and sometimes for the appellant personally.

(4) The appellant was represented in this country by Sir Jan

Wessels, J.A.

Langerman, who held his power of attorney; and who frequently consulted the respondents in regard to legal work which had to be transacted on behalf of the companies and on behalf of the appellant.

(5) In January, 1917, the appellant sold out his interests in the Randfontein Estates and the subsidiary companies to Solomon Barnato Joel without communicating the fact to the respondent.

(6) After the purchase Mr. Joel requested the respondent to continue to act as the attorneys of the Randfontein group of companies and to this arrangement the respondents agreed.

(7) In January, 1917 the respondents were consulted, as the solicitors of the Randfontein Estates with regard to an action Against a former director of the company other than the appellant. They advised a thorough investigation of the company's books. This was done and in October, 191.7, facts were Placed before the respondents which led to the action against the appellant.

(8) The respondents allege, and there is no reason to doubt their assertion, that: at the time of the action they had no documents in possession which belonged to the appellant. They had some office files and covers relating to work done in connection with some conveyancing transactions and disbursements. These covers were set aside and not referred to as soon as the action was contemplated. They were afterwards handed over to the attorney ho then acted for the appellant and who subsequently returned these covers, etc., to the respondents.

(9) Now the action which was...