IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 17April 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
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +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
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.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 17April 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
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +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
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.
