011 303 7900

Get in touch with us





We are experienced in provisions for various mechanisms for use in handling conflict between management and organized labour, namely litigation, arbitration, mediation and other methods of dispute resolution.

  • Banking litigation
  • Class and group actions
  • Commercial litigation
  • Business Rescue, Restructuring and Insolvency
  • Insurance
  • International arbitration and litigation
  • Media
  • Administrative and constitutional law
  • Telecommunications

Breach of Contract


In this matter, the firm was acting on behalf of MTN. MTN customer had instituted a claim alleging that MTN had fraudulently conducted a sim swap and breached the contract and that MTN was also negligent in its conduct through its employees and as such a sum of money was transferred to unknown beneficiaries.
The firm was able to persuade the MTN customer to withdraw his claim against MTN. The firm persuaded the MTN customer that his claim is primarily against ABSA. As a result, the MTN customer withdrew against MTN and proceeded with his action against ABSA.


 Contractual Dispute – Impossibility of performance.


Our client, which is a company which supplies telecommunication services, had leased a store at the landlords premises. Employees of our client embarked on a nationwide strike, which resulted in our client being unable to operate from any of leased stores. The landlord issued summons against our client claiming penalty fees due to them as a result of our client’s failure to operate.


We defended the claim on the basis of impossibility of performance of the contract terms by our client.


Motor Vehicle Accident – Joinder  – Vicarious Liability 


Our client’s employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Claimant. A claim was instituted against our client and its employee for damages suffered as a result of the accident for the repair of the Claimant’s vehicle. The Claimant joined our client to the action based on vicarious liability.


We defended the claim on the basis that our client was not the sole cause of the collision and we further instituted a counterclaim against the Claimant for the damages caused to our client’s vehicle.