THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA

Reportable
Case No 459/04

In the matter between:

TELIMATRIX (PTY) LTD
t/a MATRIX VEHICLE TRACKING

Appellant

and

ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY SA
Respondent

Coram:
HARMS, CAMERON, VAN HEERDEN, MLAMBO JJA and
CACHALIA AJA
Heard:
22 AUGUST 2005
Delivered: 9  SEPTEMBER 2005

Subject:
Delict – wrongfulness – liability of adjudicating body for
negligent incorrect decisions

J U D G M E N T

HARMS JA:

[1] At stake is the liability for damages of the respondent, the Advertising
Standards Authority of SA (‘the ASA’), to an advertiser who suffered a loss
because of an incorrect decision by one of its organs. The ASA filed an
exception against the particulars of claim of the plaintiff (the present
appellant) in which the ASA pertinently raised the question whether such a
negligent decision, which prohibited the publication of two advertisements,
and which gave rise to pure economic loss can be ‘wrongful’ in the delictual
sense. ‘Pure economic loss’ in this context connotes loss that does not arise
directly from damage to the plaintiff’s person or property but rather in
consequence of the negligent act itself, such as a loss of profit, being put to
extra expenses, or the diminution in the value of property.1  In the court
below Snyders J upheld the exception and found that the plaintiff’s
particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action.2 Later she granted
leave to appeal to this court.
[2] The plaintiff’s particulars of claim, with annexures, runs to 158 pages
and contains a full exposition of the events surrounding the Directorate’s
decision. In addition we were provided with the ASA’s Code of Advertising
Practice and Procedural Guide and the parties prudently were content that
regard could be had to it even though it does not form part of the pleadings.
The case does not therefore have to be decided on bare allegations only but

1 J Neethling, JM Potgieter and PJ Visser Law of Delict 4 ed p 295 et seq; Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia
The Laws of Scotland (1996) vol 15 para 273.
2 The judgment is reported: 2005 (2) SA 264 (W).

on allegations that were fleshed out by means of annexures that tell a story.
This assists in assessing whether or not there may be other relevant evidence
that can throw light on the issue of wrongfulness. I mention this because,
relying on the majority decision in Axiam Holdings Ltd v Deloitte &
Touche,3 the plaintiff argued that it is inappropriate to decide the issue of
wrongfulness on exception because the issue is fact bound. That is not true
in all cases. This court for one has on many occasions decided matters of this
sort on exception. Three important judgments that spring to mind are
Lillicrap, Indac and Kadir.4 Some public policy considerations can be
decided without a detailed factual matrix, which by contrast is essential for
deciding negligence and causation.
[3] Exceptions should be dealt with sensibly. They provide a useful
mechanism to weed out cases without legal merit. An over-technical
approach destroys their utility. To borrow the imagery employed by Miller J,
the response to an exception should be like a sword that ‘cuts through the
tissue of which the exception is compounded and exposes its vulnerability.’5
Dealing with an interpretation issue, he added:
‘Nor do I think that the mere notional possibility that evidence of surrounding
circumstances may influence the issue should necessarily operate to debar the Court from

3 SCA case 303/04 of 1 June 2005.
4 Lillicrap, Wassenaar & Partners v Pilkington Brothers (SA) (Pty) Ltd  1985 (1) SA 475 (A); Indac
Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A); Minister of Law and Order v Kadir 1995
(1) SA 303 (A).
5 Davenport Corner Tea Room (Pty) Ltd v Joubert 1962 (2) SA 709 (D) 715H.

deciding such issue on exception. There must, I think, be something more than a notional
or remote possibility. Usually that something more can be gathered from the pleadings
and the facts alleged or admitted therein. There may be a specific allegation in the
pleadings showing the relevance of extraneous facts, or there may be allegations from
which it may be inferred that further facts affecting interpretation may reasonably
possibly exist. A measure of conjecture is undoubtedly both permissible and proper, but
the shield should not be allowed to protect the respondent where it is composed entirely
of conjectural and speculative hypotheses, lacking any real foundation in the pleadings or
in the obvious facts.’6
[4] The ASA, according to the particulars of claim, is an independent
body set up and sponsored by the advertising industry to ensure that the
industry’s system of self-regulation works ‘in the public interest’. The ASA
has a self-contained code that is based on an internationally accepted model
and determines its terms of reference and defines its scope of authority.
Advertisers such as the plaintiff are ‘indirectly bound’ to observe the code
because their advertising agents belong to a constituent member of the ASA.
The main purpose of the code is to protect consumers and to ensure fair play
among advertisers. Its procedural guide provides for the lodging of
complaints and the method of disposition.
[5] The facts that gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim for damages of some
R6.5m are these. A competitor, Netstar (Pty) Ltd, lodged a complaint against
an advertisement campaign ran by the plaintiff. After receiving written

6 At 716C-E. Partially quoted with approval in Gardner v Richardt 1974 (3) SA 768 (C) 773D-E.

submissions from both parties the Directorate, whose function this was,
upheld one ground of complaint and ordered the immediate withdrawal of
the offending advertisements. The plaintiff complied grudgingly but
appealed to the ASA’s internal appeal body, namely the Advertising Industry
Tribunal, which upheld the appeal, basically because the complainant during
the appeal hearing withdrew the particular objection on which the
Directorate’s decision was based.
[6] Against that background the plaintiff in summary alleged that the
Directorate ought to have been aware that its ruling would have far-reaching
implications for the plaintiff, who was bound to comply with the ruling, and
that such a ruling could cause the plaintiff to suffer damages. The
implication of these allegations is that the plaintiff was a foreseeable plaintiff
and the loss was foreseeable. Further, the Directorate –
‘owed the plaintiff a duty of care to consider and arrive at a decision
(i)
without negligence;
(ii)
in a manner which is fair, justifiable and reasonable;
(iii)
within the ambit of the terms of the complaint; and
(iv)
in a manner that is not arbitrary.’
[7] This duty of care, the plaintiff’s pleading asserts, was breached
because in arriving at its decision and in publishing and communicating it,
the Directorate acted –

‘(a)
negligently in that the part of the ruling upholding the complaint ought not
reasonably to have been arrived at, not being justifiable or reasonable in any respect;
(b)
outside the ambit of the terms of the complaint in that the basis upon which the
complaint was upheld had not been part of the complaint;
(c)
arbitrarily, not having called for nor having received representations or
submissions in respect of the issue upon which the Directorate ruled against the
[plaintiff].’
[8] The premise of the exception was that the ruling of the Directorate, in
the circumstances alleged, did not amount to a wrongful act that could have
given rise to a delictual claim and that the ASA did not breach any duty
owed by it to the plaintiff.
[9] If regard is had to the documents incorporated into the pleadings, the
complaints listed in (b) and (c) have no factual basis. The Directorate upheld
the complaint because it found that the plaintiff was promoting its product
(an electronic vehicle tracking system) by capitalising ‘on the fear factor’,
contrary to clause 3.1 of the code that provides that ‘advertisements should
not without justifiable reason play on fear.’ The problem is that instead of
mentioning clause 3.1 the complainant had relied in its original submission
to the ASA on a non-existent clause 2.1. The plaintiff itself perceived that
this was a typographical error, pointed it out to the Directorate, quoted clause
3.1, and made its submissions on that basis. The procedural guide in any
event requires of the Directorate, if ‘the sections of the Code to which the

complaint relates’ are not identified in the complaint lodged with it, to
consider the complaint in terms of the sections of the code it regards as
relevant, and to deal with the complaint as if it had been lodged in terms of
those sections.
[10] Counsel for the plaintiff strenuously objected to our having regard to
the totality of the pleadings and wished to confine the court to a
consideration of the facts alleged in the body of the particulars of claim in
isolation. His objection was ill-founded. Pleadings must be read as a whole
and in deciding an exception a court is not playing games, blindfolding
itself.7 In any event, as will become apparent, these allegations, even if
meritorious, make no difference to the case.
[11] In spite of a spate of judicial pronouncements on ‘wrongfulness’ by
different panels of this court, all stating more or less the same in more or less
the same terminology a restatement using the words of others is sometimes
inevitable. This is because, depending on the issues in the case, different
matters have to be emphasised.
[12] The first principle of the law of delict, which is so easily forgotten and
hardly appears in any local text on the subject, is, as the Dutch author Asser
points out, that everyone has to bear the loss he or she suffers.8 The
Afrikaans aphorism is that ‘skade rus waar dit val.’ Aquilian liability

7 Cf Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) 26H-I.
8 C Asser Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht: Verbintenissenrecht 9 ed
(1994) part III p 12: ‘In beginsel moet ieder de door hem zelf geleden schade dragen.’

provides for an exception to the rule and, in order to be liable for the loss of
someone else, the act or omission of the defendant must have been wrongful
and negligent and have caused the loss. But the fact that an act is negligent
does not make it wrongful9 although foreseeability of damage may be a
factor in establishing whether or not a particular act was wrongful.10 To
elevate negligence to the determining factor confuses wrongfulness with
negligence and leads to the absorption of the English law tort of negligence
into our law, thereby distorting it.11
[13] When dealing with the negligent causation of pure economic loss it is
well to remember that the act or omission is not prima facie wrongful
(‘unlawful’ is the synonym and is less of a euphemism) and that more is
needed.12 Policy considerations must dictate that the plaintiff should be
entitled to be recompensed by the defendant for the loss suffered13 (and not
the converse as Goldstone J once implied14 unless it is a case of prima facie
wrongfulness, such as where the loss was due to damage caused to the
person or property of the plaintiff).  In other words, conduct is wrongful if
public policy considerations demand that in the circumstances the plaintiff

9 Indac Electronics (Pty) ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A) 793I-J; Minister of Safety and
Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) para [12].
10 Government of the RSA v Basdeo & another 1996 (1) SA 355 (A) 368H.
11 There are a number of informative articles dealing with wrongfulness that have been helpful by Francois
du Bois, Anton Fagan, Johan Potgieter, JR Midgley, Jonathan Burchell and Dale Hutchison in TJ Scott &
Daniel Visser (ed) Developing Delict: Essays in Honour of Robert Feenstra also published in the 2000
edition of Acta Juridica.
12 BOE Bank Ltd v Ries 2002 (2) SA 39 (SCA) para [12]-[13].
13 Lillicrap, Wassenaar & Partners v Pilkington Brothers (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1985 (1) SA 475 (A) 501G-H.
14 Quoted in International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 (1) SA 680 (A) 694F-G. So, too, Davis J in
Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd v Premier, Western Cape 2002 (6) SA 180 (C) 191 in fine.

has to be compensated for the loss caused by the negligent act or omission of
the defendant.15 It is then that it can be said that the legal convictions of
society regard the conduct as wrongful,16 something akin to and perhaps
derived from the modern Dutch test ‘in strijd . . . met hetgeen volgens
ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt’ (contrary to
what is acceptable in social relations according to unwritten law).17
[14] To formulate the issue in terms of a ‘duty of care’ may lead one
astray. It cannot be doubted that the ASA owed a duty towards the plaintiff
to consider and arrive at a decision without negligence, in a manner that was
fair, justifiable and reasonable, and within the ambit of the complaint, but it
does not follow that a failure to have done so created an obligation to
compensate. To illustrate: there is obviously a duty – even a legal duty – on
a judicial officer to adjudicate cases correctly and not to err negligently. That
does not mean that a judicial officer who fails in the duty, because of
negligence, acted wrongfully. Put in direct terms: can it be unlawful, in the
sense that the wronged party is entitled to monetary compensation, for an
incorrect judgment given negligently by a judicial officer, whether in
exercising a discretion or making a value judgment, assessing the facts or in
finding, interpreting or applying the appropriate legal principle?  Public or

15Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597A-B: ‘dat die gelede skade vergoed behoort te
word’. Cf Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board & another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) para [12];
Pretorius en andere v McCallum 2002 (2) SA 423 (C) 427E. See for a full treatment of the proposition:
Anton Fagan ‘Rethinking wrongfulness in the law of delict’ 2005 SALJ 90 at 107-108.
16 Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597A-B.
17 Asser op cit p 36-37.

legal policy considerations require that there should be no liability, ie, that
the potential defendant should be afforded immunity against a damages
claim, even from third parties affected by the judgment.18 As Botha JA said
in somewhat similar circumstances:19
‘That is not to say that the local authority need not exercise due care in dealing with
applications; of course it must, but the point is that it would be contrary to the objective
criterion of reasonableness to hold the local authority liable for damages if it should turn
out that it acted negligently in refusing an application, when the applicant has a
convenient remedy at hand to obtain the approval he is seeking. To allow an action for
damages in these circumstances would, I am convinced, offend the legal convictions of
the community.’
[15] Stating that there are no general rules determining wrongfulness and
that it always depends on ‘the facts of the particular case’ is accordingly
somewhat of an overstatement20 because there are also some ‘categories
fixed by the law’.21 For example, since the judgment in Indac,22 which held
that a collecting bank owes a legal duty to the owner of a cheque, it is well-
nigh impossible to argue that a collecting bank has no such duty,23 and all
that may remain is to consider whether vis-à-vis the particular plaintiff the

18 Local Transitional Council of Delmas & another v Boshoff  (SCA case 302/04) 31 May 2005 unreported
para [19].
19 Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) 33D-E.
20 Cape Town Municipality v Bakkerud 2000 (3) SA 1049 (SCA) para 14.
21 Tony Honore Responsibility and Fault (1999) p 101 quoted in Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender
Board & another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) para [11].
22 Indac Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A).
23 Cf Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Harris & another NNO (JA du Toit Inc intervening) 2003 (2) SA 23
(SCA).

duty existed.24 However, as public policy considerations change, these
categories may change, whether by expansion or contraction.25
[16] Many policy considerations can be determined without evidence, but
if evidence is required, it has to be ‘relevant’, ie, relevant to policy
considerations.26 As Nugent JA said,27
‘When determining whether the law should recognise the existence of a legal duty
in any particular circumstances what is called for is not an intuitive reaction to a
collection of arbitrary factors but rather a balancing against one another of identifiable
norms.’
[17] Since the present case deals with the wrongfulness of a decision
reached in a process that may properly be described as adjudicative, it will
be useful to consider in more detail the immunity given to judicial officers
against damages claims. Johannes Voet in his Commentary on the Pandects
5.1.58 said (Gane’s translation somewhat adapted):

‘But in our customs and those of many other nations it is rather rare for the judge
to [bear the responsibility for the outcome] by ill judging. That is because the trite rule
that he is not made liable by mere lack of knowledge or [lack of skill], but by fraud only,
which is commonly difficult of proof. It would be a bad business with judges, especially
lower judges who have no skill in law, if in so widespread a science of law and practice,
such a variety of views, and such a crowd of cases which will not brook but sweep aside
delay, they should be held personally liable to the risk of individual suits, when their

24 Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit v Geldenhuys 2004 (1) SA 515 (SCA) para [26].
25 Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit v Geldenhuys 2004 (1) SA 515 (SCA) para [25].
26 Indac Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A) 797F-G.
27 Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) para [21].

unfair judgment springs not from fraud, but from mistake, lack of knowledge or [lack of
skill].’
This statement reflects the current legal position.28
[18] The different judgments in R v Kumalo & others29 are in this regard
instructive. A chief, who had civil jurisdiction but did not have the necessary
jurisdiction to impose corporal punishment, imposed it on the complainant
for contempt of his court. The chief and some others were then criminally
charged with assault. Van den Heever JA thought that the chief was entitled
to the indemnity mentioned by Voet and in addition quoted an 1886
judgment of Lord de Villiers30 holding that judicial officers are also not
liable in damages in relation to administrative functions performed by them
in good faith in the course of their duties. Hoexter JA, speaking on behalf of
the majority, confirmed the conviction on the ground that the chief knew that
he was acting outside the terms of his judicial authority. Schreiner JA also
confirmed the conviction but on another ground, namely that the chief was
personally instrumental in inflicting the punishment – his intervention did
not stop at the judicial act. More of interest though is Schreiner JA’s finding
(concordant with that of van den Heever JA) that the fact that the chief had

28 Penrice v Dickinson 1945  AD 6 at 14-15. Similar considerations apply to defamation claims: May v
Udwin 1981 (1) SA 1 (A) 19E-F.
29 1952 (1) SA 381 (A).
30 The Cape of Good Hope Bank v Fischer (1885-1886) 4 SC 368 at 375.

exceeded his jurisdiction on its own would not have made him liable.31 This,
I would suggest, in the ordinary course of things makes good sense because
a wrong assumption of jurisdiction does not differ in kind from any other
wrong decision.
[19] The decisive policy underlying the immunity of the judiciary is the
protection of its independence to enable it to adjudicate fearlessly.32
Litigants (like those depending on an administrative process) are not
‘entitled to a perfect process, free from innocent [ie, non mala fide] errors’.33
The threat of an action for damages would ‘unduly hamper the expeditious
consideration and disposal’ of litigation.34 In each and every case there is at
least one disgruntled litigant. Although damages and the plaintiff are
foreseeable, and although damages are not indeterminate in any particular
case, the ‘floodgate’ argument (with all its holes) does find application.
[20] Similar considerations apply to the immunity afforded to arbitrators
and quasi-arbitrators, ie, persons who (usually by virtue of a contract) are
entrusted with an adjudicative function that imposes on them a duty to act
impartially.35

31 At 386F-H. The conclusion finds support in Matthews & others v Young 1922 AD 492 at 507 quoted
later. English law may be different in this regard: Halsbury’s Laws of England 4 ed reissue vol 33 para 620.
But see Abbott v Sullivan & others [1952] 1 All ER 226 (CA).
32 Sutcliffe v Thackrah & others [1974] 1 All ER 859 (HL) 862g-h.
33  Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO & others 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA) para [17].
34 Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) 33C-D in another context.
35 Hoffman v Meyer 1956 (2) SA 752 (C); Sutcliffe v Thackrah & others [1974] 1 All ER 859 (HL).

[21]  The facts and conclusion in Matthews & others v Young36 provide a
useful analogy. Young was a member of a trade union. Membership was a
precondition for employment by the local municipality. The trade union
terminated his membership, the municipality dismissed him, and he then
sued the officials of the union for damages. The court held that the expulsion
had been invalid because it was not in terms of the union’s constitution.
Jacob de Villiers JA pointed out (at 507) that –
‘there is no onus upon a defendant until the plaintiff has proved that a legal right of his
has been infringed. Under the lex Aquilia there is only an action for damnum injuria
datum – for pecuniary loss inflicted through a legal injury, and the defendant is not called
upon to answer the plaintiff's case before the plaintiff has proved both the pecuniary loss
and that it directly results from what is, in the eye of the law, an injuria.’
He held that the trade union had not proceeded strictly in accordance with
the rules of the society and that the officials had no jurisdiction, under the
circumstances, to take the action they did, but he held (at 507) –
‘to ignore the fact that they purported to act as the properly constituted tribunal under the
rules of the association is to disregard a material fact in the case for the defendants which
can hardly be considered irrelevant. A judge who purports to try a case in which he has
no jurisdiction would not on that account be liable.’
The comparison with a judicial determination was taken further in the
conclusion (at 509-510):

36 1922 AD 492.

‘In my opinion, therefore, in considering plaintiff's conduct and in taking the
resolution they took, the council purported to act under the rules of the society, and as in
so doing they were performing functions analogous to those performed by a judge, they
were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and are, therefore under our law (Groenewegen,
de Leg. Abr. Ad. 1.4.5.1; Voet 5. 1.58 in fine), as also, I understand, under the English
law, not liable for any damage provided they acted bona fide and in the honest discharge
of their duties. When once it is established that the defendants were acting in such a
capacity under the rules of the society, to which the plaintiff as a member must be taken
to have given his full assent, the onus would be upon him to prove that, in taking the
resolution and in the further steps they took, they did so not in pursuance of the duty
devolving upon them as such council, but were actuated by some indirect or improper
motive.’
[22] Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the outcome of Matthews v Young
depended on the fact that Young ‘as a member must be taken to have given
his full assent’ to the proceedings and absent a contractual relationship (like
that created by joining a voluntary association), the case is distinguishable
from the present and that the underlying principles are inapplicable. I
disagree. The contract in the form of the constitution of the union was no
doubt a factor deemed relevant but it appears to me that the true ratio of the
judgment lies in the analogy drawn with judicial functions. That is how
Botha JA understood it in Knop when he said that  the observations that the
trade union officials had performed discretionary and not merely ministerial
duties and had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity constituted steps in the

reasoning which in the circumstances of the case were considered to be
decisive on the issue of wrongfulness.37
[23] Botha JA (at 20C-F and 24I-J) in his judgment in Knop doubted the
usefulness of drawing a distinction between purely administrative and quasi-
judicial decisions in determining the question of wrongfulness (thereby
implying, I think, that an incorrect administrative decision is not per se
wrongful and that the same approach may apply in relation to both types of
decisions). In any event, where a local authority has to weigh up conflicting
interests and exercise a value judgment (at 30G) –
‘Linguistically and conceptually it can be said that the Council is fulfilling a quasi-
judicial function and exercising a quasi-judicial discretion.’
[24] Counsel stressed that the mores of society have changed since 1922
and that constitutional values have to be considered as part of the present-
day mores. All this is true but the question is rather whether there has been a
change in public policy in relation to the considerations that underpin
Matthews v Young. Reference was made during argument to accountability,
an important constitutional value but the judiciary, at least, is still
accountable only to the law for their decisions38 and public accountability, as

37 Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) 24E-G.
38 Judges’ Charter in Europe para 2.

far as organs of state are concerned, has not evolved into a general liability
for damages for imperfect administrative actions.39
[25] Whether an organ of state is liable for damages because of negligent
non-judicial decisions with a statutory basis depends often on the intention
of the legislature and on an interpretation of the statutory instrument
concerned. This happened ultimately in Knop, where a local authority
approved a subdivision of property contrary to the provisions of a town
planning scheme. Realising its mistake, the municipality informed the
applicant who then sued the local authority for financial losses suffered as a
result of the steps he had taken after the grant of the approval. Botha JA’s
judgment first dealt at length with the general principles underlying delictual
liability and he found that considerations of convenience militate strongly
against allowing an action for damages, the reason being that the threat of
litigation would unduly hamper the expeditious consideration and disposal of
applications by a local authority (at 33C-D). With that in mind he set out to
interpret the statute in question in order to determine whether the legislature
intended another result. He concluded it did not (at 31D-E), an answer
fortified by the fact that the legislation in question provided for an appeal
procedure (at 31E-F). The importance of an internal appeal procedure is that
it may be indicative of an intention that that is the only available remedy for

39 Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board & another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA).

an incorrect decision. For an incorrect decision on appeal there is then no
remedy except a judicial review.
[26] To sum up: In different situations courts have found that public policy
considerations require that adjudicators of disputes are immune to damages
claims in respect of their incorrect and negligent decisions. The overriding
consideration has always been that, by the very nature of the adjudication
process, rights will be affected and that the process will bog down unless
decisions can be made without fear of damages claims, something that must
impact on the independence of the adjudicator. Decisions made in bad faith
are, however, unlawful and can give rise to damages claims.
[27] What remains for consideration is whether a decision of a body such
as the ASA should be denied immunity. The only aspect raised on the
plaintiff’s behalf was the fact that the plaintiff was not a member of the ASA
but was nevertheless ‘indirectly bound’ by its rulings because its advertising
agent was a member of a constituent body of the ASA. In Matthews v Young,
counsel reminded us, by joining the union Young bound himself to its
process. The answer is really this. If the plaintiff was not legally bound to
the ruling through those whose services it engaged, the plaintiff could have
ignored the ASA’s decision but, if it chose to abide by it, its loss would have
been caused by its election and not by the incorrect decision. By engaging
the services of someone who is a member of a professional organisation, one

has to accept the consequences of that person’s professional rules and
standards.
[28] An incorrect decision which was arrived at negligently during an
adjudicative process which purports to serve the public interest cannot in my
judgment be regarded as being unlawful. This applies even if the process is
not based on legislation or contract and the principle is hence not dependent
on consent. The public policy considerations mentioned in relation to the
immunity of the judiciary apply equally. The process in this case purported
to serve the public good and incorrect decisions, some based on wrong legal
concepts, and others involving the erroneous exercise of a discretion or value
judgment, some because of mistaken factual findings, are to be expected and
have to be accepted by those affected by them, directly or indirectly.
[29] The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

_____________________
L T C  HARMS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

AGREE:

CAMERON JA
VAN HEERDEN JA
MLAMBO JA
CACHALIA AJA