IRM1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 17 APRIL 2026
, Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and Criminal Justice - IRM1501
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
Supreme Court of Appeal, 10 June 2024
Facts
Judith Mary Hawarden purchased immovable property for R6 million. Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS) was appointed by the seller as conveyancing attorneys.
Hawarden was not ENS’s client and had no contractual relationship with the firm.
During the conveyancing process, Hawarden’s email account was compromised by
cybercriminals through a business email compromise (BEC) scheme. Fraudsters
intercepted and altered emails between Hawarden and ENS, replacing ENS’s legitimate
banking details with fraudulent ones. Relying on these altered emails, Hawarden
transferred R5.5 million into the fraudsters’ bank account instead of ENS’s trust
account.
The fraud was discovered only after the funds had been withdrawn and could not be
recovered. Hawarden sued ENS in delict for pure economic loss, alleging that ENS
wrongfully and negligently failed to warn her adequately about BEC risks and failed to
implement stronger safeguards to prevent the fraud.
The High Court upheld Hawarden’s claim and ordered ENS to pay damages. ENS
appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Legal Question
Whether ENS owed Hawarden a legal duty, arising from an omission, to protect her
from business email compromise fraud, such that its failure to prevent or warn against
the fraud was wrongful, giving rise to delictual liability for pure economic loss.
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 17 APRIL 2026
, Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and Criminal Justice - IRM1501
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA)
Supreme Court of Appeal, 10 June 2024
Facts
Judith Mary Hawarden purchased immovable property for R6 million. Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS) was appointed by the seller as conveyancing attorneys.
Hawarden was not ENS’s client and had no contractual relationship with the firm.
During the conveyancing process, Hawarden’s email account was compromised by
cybercriminals through a business email compromise (BEC) scheme. Fraudsters
intercepted and altered emails between Hawarden and ENS, replacing ENS’s legitimate
banking details with fraudulent ones. Relying on these altered emails, Hawarden
transferred R5.5 million into the fraudsters’ bank account instead of ENS’s trust
account.
The fraud was discovered only after the funds had been withdrawn and could not be
recovered. Hawarden sued ENS in delict for pure economic loss, alleging that ENS
wrongfully and negligently failed to warn her adequately about BEC risks and failed to
implement stronger safeguards to prevent the fraud.
The High Court upheld Hawarden’s claim and ordered ENS to pay damages. ENS
appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Legal Question
Whether ENS owed Hawarden a legal duty, arising from an omission, to protect her
from business email compromise fraud, such that its failure to prevent or warn against
the fraud was wrongful, giving rise to delictual liability for pure economic loss.
