IRM1501 Assignment
2 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1
2026 - DUE 17 April
2026
,Find the case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg
Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10
June 2024) and summarize it in the
prescribed format (facts, legal question,
reasons for the decision and the
findings)Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v
Judith Mary Hawarden
Case No: 421/2023
Citation: [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
Court: Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa)
Date of Judgment: 10 June 2024
1. Facts
The case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith
Mary Hawarden concerns the question of liability for
pure economic loss arising from cyber fraud during a
property transaction. Judith Mary Hawarden entered into
an agreement to purchase a residential property for a
total purchase price of R6 million. In accordance with the
agreement of sale, the seller appointed Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), a firm of attorneys, to act as the
conveyancers responsible for transferring the property to
Hawarden.
As part of the conveyancing process, Hawarden was
required to pay the purchase price into the conveyancers’
trust account. Initially, Hawarden paid a deposit of R500
000 to the estate agent involved in the transaction. Before
making this payment, she verified the estate agent’s
, banking details by telephone because she had been
warned about the risks of cyber fraud and fraudulent
email communications in property transactions. As a
result, the deposit was transferred successfully without
any issues.
The remaining balance of the purchase price, R5.5
million, still had to be paid to the conveyancers.
Hawarden subsequently received an email that appeared
to come from ENS containing banking details for
payment of the balance. However, unknown to
Hawarden, cybercriminals had gained access to her email
account and were monitoring communications between
her and ENS. The criminals intercepted the email
communications and manipulated them by inserting
fraudulent banking details.
Believing that the email originated from ENS and that
the banking details provided were legitimate, Hawarden
transferred R5.5 million into the bank account indicated
in the email. Unfortunately, the bank account belonged to
the fraudsters. Shortly after the money was transferred, it
was withdrawn and the funds were irretrievably lost.
Following this loss, Hawarden instituted legal
proceedings against ENS in the High Court, claiming
damages in the amount of R5.5 million. She argued that
ENS had been negligent because it failed to adequately
warn her about the risk of cyber fraud and the possibility
that email communications could be intercepted or
altered. Hawarden contended that ENS had a legal duty
to warn her about the risks associated with transferring
funds based solely on emailed banking details.
According to her argument, ENS’s failure to provide
2 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1
2026 - DUE 17 April
2026
,Find the case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg
Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10
June 2024) and summarize it in the
prescribed format (facts, legal question,
reasons for the decision and the
findings)Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v
Judith Mary Hawarden
Case No: 421/2023
Citation: [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
Court: Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa)
Date of Judgment: 10 June 2024
1. Facts
The case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith
Mary Hawarden concerns the question of liability for
pure economic loss arising from cyber fraud during a
property transaction. Judith Mary Hawarden entered into
an agreement to purchase a residential property for a
total purchase price of R6 million. In accordance with the
agreement of sale, the seller appointed Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), a firm of attorneys, to act as the
conveyancers responsible for transferring the property to
Hawarden.
As part of the conveyancing process, Hawarden was
required to pay the purchase price into the conveyancers’
trust account. Initially, Hawarden paid a deposit of R500
000 to the estate agent involved in the transaction. Before
making this payment, she verified the estate agent’s
, banking details by telephone because she had been
warned about the risks of cyber fraud and fraudulent
email communications in property transactions. As a
result, the deposit was transferred successfully without
any issues.
The remaining balance of the purchase price, R5.5
million, still had to be paid to the conveyancers.
Hawarden subsequently received an email that appeared
to come from ENS containing banking details for
payment of the balance. However, unknown to
Hawarden, cybercriminals had gained access to her email
account and were monitoring communications between
her and ENS. The criminals intercepted the email
communications and manipulated them by inserting
fraudulent banking details.
Believing that the email originated from ENS and that
the banking details provided were legitimate, Hawarden
transferred R5.5 million into the bank account indicated
in the email. Unfortunately, the bank account belonged to
the fraudsters. Shortly after the money was transferred, it
was withdrawn and the funds were irretrievably lost.
Following this loss, Hawarden instituted legal
proceedings against ENS in the High Court, claiming
damages in the amount of R5.5 million. She argued that
ENS had been negligent because it failed to adequately
warn her about the risk of cyber fraud and the possibility
that email communications could be intercepted or
altered. Hawarden contended that ENS had a legal duty
to warn her about the risks associated with transferring
funds based solely on emailed banking details.
According to her argument, ENS’s failure to provide
