IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 17 April 2026
3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90;
2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024)
Facts of the case
Ms Judith Hawarden bought immovable property for R6 million in May 2019. She paid a
R500 000 deposit to the estate agent after receiving cybercrime warnings and she verified
the agent’s banking details telephonically.1 In August 2019, the seller’s conveyancers,
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), emailed her documents relating to guarantees and
payment. A cybercriminal had already gained access to Ms Hawarden’s email account and
intercepted and altered emails and attachments, including ENS banking details and anti-
fraud warnings.1 Ms Hawarden received emails that appeared to come from ENS staff, but
the email address was subtly altered.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA
90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024)
Facts of the case
Ms Judith Hawarden bought immovable property for R6 million in May 2019. She paid a
R500 000 deposit to the estate agent after receiving cybercrime warnings and she verified
the agent’s banking details telephonically.1 In August 2019, the seller’s conveyancers,
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), emailed her documents relating to guarantees
and payment. A cybercriminal had already gained access to Ms Hawarden’s email
account and intercepted and altered emails and attachments, including ENS banking
details and anti-fraud warnings.2 Ms Hawarden received emails that appeared to come
from ENS staff, but the email address was subtly altered.3 She opted not to provide a bank
guarantee and instead chose an EFT while at her bank, with assistance from a bank
employee, and transferred R5.5 million into the fraudster’s account believing it was ENS.4
Proof of payment emails were also intercepted and manipulated, delaying detection. The
fraud was discovered only days later and the funds could not be recovered.5 Ms Hawarden
sued ENS in delict for pure economic loss, alleging a wrongful omission by ENS to protect
or warn her adequately.6
Legal question(s)
The Supreme Court of Appeal had to determine whether ENS’s alleged omission was
wrongful for purposes of delictual liability for pure economic loss.7 This required deciding
whether, on public and legal policy considerations consistent with constitutional norms, it
was reasonable to impose a legal duty on ENS (a creditor and conveyancer, with no
attorney-client relationship to Ms Hawarden at the time) to prevent or warn against
1
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) paras 2–
3.
2
Ibid paras 4–5.
3
Ibid para 5.
4
Ibid paras 6–7.
5
Ibid paras 8–11.
6
Ibid paras 12–13.
7
Ibid para 16.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 17 April 2026
3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90;
2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024)
Facts of the case
Ms Judith Hawarden bought immovable property for R6 million in May 2019. She paid a
R500 000 deposit to the estate agent after receiving cybercrime warnings and she verified
the agent’s banking details telephonically.1 In August 2019, the seller’s conveyancers,
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), emailed her documents relating to guarantees and
payment. A cybercriminal had already gained access to Ms Hawarden’s email account and
intercepted and altered emails and attachments, including ENS banking details and anti-
fraud warnings.1 Ms Hawarden received emails that appeared to come from ENS staff, but
the email address was subtly altered.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA
90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024)
Facts of the case
Ms Judith Hawarden bought immovable property for R6 million in May 2019. She paid a
R500 000 deposit to the estate agent after receiving cybercrime warnings and she verified
the agent’s banking details telephonically.1 In August 2019, the seller’s conveyancers,
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), emailed her documents relating to guarantees
and payment. A cybercriminal had already gained access to Ms Hawarden’s email
account and intercepted and altered emails and attachments, including ENS banking
details and anti-fraud warnings.2 Ms Hawarden received emails that appeared to come
from ENS staff, but the email address was subtly altered.3 She opted not to provide a bank
guarantee and instead chose an EFT while at her bank, with assistance from a bank
employee, and transferred R5.5 million into the fraudster’s account believing it was ENS.4
Proof of payment emails were also intercepted and manipulated, delaying detection. The
fraud was discovered only days later and the funds could not be recovered.5 Ms Hawarden
sued ENS in delict for pure economic loss, alleging a wrongful omission by ENS to protect
or warn her adequately.6
Legal question(s)
The Supreme Court of Appeal had to determine whether ENS’s alleged omission was
wrongful for purposes of delictual liability for pure economic loss.7 This required deciding
whether, on public and legal policy considerations consistent with constitutional norms, it
was reasonable to impose a legal duty on ENS (a creditor and conveyancer, with no
attorney-client relationship to Ms Hawarden at the time) to prevent or warn against
1
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) paras 2–
3.
2
Ibid paras 4–5.
3
Ibid para 5.
4
Ibid paras 6–7.
5
Ibid paras 8–11.
6
Ibid paras 12–13.
7
Ibid para 16.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
