I
, RM1501 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Case Summary — Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden [2024]
ZASCA 90
1. Facts
Ms Judith Mary Hawarden purchased a property for R6 million. The
estate agent and then the conveyancing attorneys — Edward
Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS) — were involved in facilitating the
transfer.
A deposit was paid correctly after verification of bank details. Later,
Ms Hawarden received emails appearing to be from ENS with
banking details for payment of the R5.5 million balance.
Unbeknownst to her, a cyber-criminal had hacked her email
account and intercepted and altered the ENS banking details in
emails, directing her to pay into the fraudster’s account.
Ms Hawarden transferred the large sum into the fraudulent account
and the funds were withdrawn by the fraudster before detection.
She sued ENS in the Gauteng High Court, claiming pure economic
loss on the basis that ENS owed her a duty to warn and protect her
against Business Email Compromise (BEC) and cyber fraud. The
High Court found ENS liable and awarded her R5.5 million.
2. Legal Question
At issue before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was:
Whether ENS owed Ms Hawarden a legal duty in delict to protect her
from the risk of business email compromise and whether ENS’s
omission in failing to warn her or take precautions was wrongful,
thereby giving rise to liability for the pure economic loss she suffered.
This central question focussed on the wrongfulness element in a delictual
claim for pure economic loss arising from an alleged omission.
, RM1501 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Case Summary — Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden [2024]
ZASCA 90
1. Facts
Ms Judith Mary Hawarden purchased a property for R6 million. The
estate agent and then the conveyancing attorneys — Edward
Nathan Sonnenberg Inc (ENS) — were involved in facilitating the
transfer.
A deposit was paid correctly after verification of bank details. Later,
Ms Hawarden received emails appearing to be from ENS with
banking details for payment of the R5.5 million balance.
Unbeknownst to her, a cyber-criminal had hacked her email
account and intercepted and altered the ENS banking details in
emails, directing her to pay into the fraudster’s account.
Ms Hawarden transferred the large sum into the fraudulent account
and the funds were withdrawn by the fraudster before detection.
She sued ENS in the Gauteng High Court, claiming pure economic
loss on the basis that ENS owed her a duty to warn and protect her
against Business Email Compromise (BEC) and cyber fraud. The
High Court found ENS liable and awarded her R5.5 million.
2. Legal Question
At issue before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was:
Whether ENS owed Ms Hawarden a legal duty in delict to protect her
from the risk of business email compromise and whether ENS’s
omission in failing to warn her or take precautions was wrongful,
thereby giving rise to liability for the pure economic loss she suffered.
This central question focussed on the wrongfulness element in a delictual
claim for pure economic loss arising from an alleged omission.
