Myburgh Attorneys Inc

Directions Website Contact the practice

Myburgh Attorneys Inc The firms expanding client base serves as proof of our commitment to excellence. In every matter we apply the highest standard of ethical norms and principles.
(1)

Myburgh Attorneys Incorporated is a boutique firm that has been in existence since 1 August 1999, previously trading as a sole proprietorship called Myburgh & Associates Attorneys. The firm's level of service and efficiency has repeatedly proven that the interests of clients are paramount and that the value added service offered to our clients' business and personal interests are of utmost importance. At Myburgh Incorporated we pride ourselves in setting ourselves apart from other legal firms in that we actively strive to serve each and every client with the highest standard of competence possible. Our largest client component is derived as a result of word of mouth referrals wherefrom we secure our local, national and international client base. In so doing we have built up a sound reputation within the legal fraternity. The firm is secure in that the majority of the firm’s staff has been with the firm for an extensive period of time. All the staff members are competent and well experienced in their fields of expertise. Each staff member is well versed in the firm’s policies and procedures and committed to ensuring that the highest standards are applied at the firm. We are an inspired, structured, motivated and outgoing team who believe that passion, hard work, honesty, integrity and vision is the backbone of being a successful legal firm. Contact Janine Myburgh or Anel de Bruyn at Myburgh Attorneys Inc at (021) 945 4960 / [email protected]. The Firm Prides itself on its experience in fields of

Family Law,
Divorce Matters
MVA Claims
Civil Litigation (High Court and Magistrates Court)
Collections
Drafting of Contracts (Commercial and Marriage)
Criminal Law
Family and Divorce Mediation
Labour Law
Drafting of wills
Estates

19/10/2026

CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES AND THE LIMITS OF RECOVERABLE DAMAGES IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

The case of VCED Maintenance Group (Pty) Ltd v Phoenix Tanks (Pty) Ltd centred on a contractual dispute between plaintiff VCED Maintenance Group and defendant Phoenix Tanks. VCED had hired Phoenix Tanks to manufacture and install a Sectional Steel Galvanized Tank for a sub-contract project at the Boitekong Community Health Centre. After paying a 50% upfront deposit of R87,324.00, VCED experienced continuous delays, leading Phoenix Tanks to eventually promise a refund that was never paid. VCED subsequently cancelled the agreement and took Phoenix Tanks to court to recover damages.

The main issue before the court was whether Phoenix Tanks' failure to deliver constituted a material breach (repudiation) entitling VCED to a refund, as well as two additional damage claims. VCED sought: (1) repayment of the R87,324 deposit; (2) R230,321.62 for additional expenses incurred from buying a more expensive replacement tank from another supplier (ABECO); and (3) R105,535.24 for penalties VCED suffered under its main project contract due to completion delays.

The High Court ruled in favour of VCED on its primary claim. The court found that Phoenix Tanks severely breached and repudiated the contract by failing to deliver the tank. However, the court dismissed VCED's second and third claims for additional damages. The court noted that VCED failed to establish a direct causal link between Phoenix Tanks' breach and the higher cost of the replacement tank (which had different specifications) or the third-party delay penalties incurred on the overall project.

The court ordered Phoenix Tanks to pay VCED the requested sum of R87,324.00 plus interest from the date of demand (28 January 2019), along with legal costs. The key lesson one can take from this ruling is that while courts will readily order a refund for non-performance, recovering consequential damages such as replacement costs or third-party contract penalties requires clear proof of causation and identical scope. When finding a new supplier after a delay, companies should make sure the replacement product matches the original order exactly. They should also include clear terms in their contracts so suppliers are held responsible if their delays cause penalties with other clients.

Your Trusted Advisor
(021) 945-4960 | [email protected] | capetownattorney.co.za

Happy Birthday to our Managing Director, Janine Myburgh! May the year ahead bring continued success and prosperity! 🎈🎉
19/10/2026

Happy Birthday to our Managing Director, Janine Myburgh! May the year ahead bring continued success and prosperity! 🎈🎉

Our MD Janine Myburgh attending the German day of Unity
18/10/2026

Our MD Janine Myburgh attending the German day of Unity

Exciting additions to the practice! Janine Myburgh pictured with Asisipho Ziphongwana, our Front Office Assistant. Welco...
16/10/2026

Exciting additions to the practice! Janine Myburgh pictured with Asisipho Ziphongwana, our Front Office Assistant. Welcome to the team, Asisipho! 🎉

Happy Boss's Day to the most amazing boss! We appreciate you so much! 🎉
16/10/2026

Happy Boss's Day to the most amazing boss! We appreciate you so much! 🎉

14/10/2026

FORM OVER SUBSTANCE: CAN THE CCMA FIX A MISCLASSIFIED DISMISSAL?

In Dawn Ltd and Others v Molefe and Others (Case No: JR 2114/21), the Labour Court of South Africa considered a review application under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) concerning an arbitration award handed down by a CCMA commissioner. The matter originated when an employee referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, citing 'reasons unknown' following the termination of his employment amidst group restructuring and business rescue proceedings. The arbitrator subsequently ruled that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair, awarding compensation against the group’s holding company and operating division. The employer parties applied to review and set aside the award on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.

The court first addressed the issue of employer identity and the joinder of non-referred parties, holding that the arbitrator erred in determining the true employer. The objective evidence established that the employee was employed by an operating company under business rescue, rather than the holding companies against which relief was granted or sought. Furthermore, the court held that joining additional corporate entities post-conciliation is legally incompetent if no prior section 191 referral was served directly on them. Disregarding separate corporate personalities to extend liability to holding entities without establishing grounds to pierce the corporate veil constituted a fundamental error of law.

On the question of jurisdictional subject-matter, the court held that courts and commissioners must determine the true nature of a dispute from the objective facts rather than accepting a partys categorization. The evidence demonstrated that the termination stemmed directly from a business rescue plan resulting in enterprise-wide retrenchments for operational requirements. Under section 191 of the LRA, where a dispute concerns dismissals based on operational requirements following a multi-employee retrenchment process, the CCMA lacks jurisdiction to arbitrate, as sole jurisdiction rests with the Labour Court.

The court applied a de novo standard of review appropriate for jurisdictional challenges rather than the reasonable decision-maker test. The Labour Court granted the review application and set aside the arbitrator’s award for lack of jurisdiction. The award was substituted with a determination dismissing the matter for want of CCMA jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.

Your Trusted Advisor (021) 945-4960 | [email protected] | capetownattorney.co.za

14/10/2026

The legal representative for the Electoral Commission (IEC), Advocate Terry Motau has argued in the Constitutional Court that the IEC’s online nomination system warned users that failure to press the final submission button meant a nomination had not been submitted. https://tinyurl.com/2cmeycjp

12/10/2026

Justice Navi Pillay such a worthy recipient of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. She truly has made a significant impact in the lives of others. A true child of Africa making a difference across the globe.

12/10/2026

DISPUTED ASSETS AND CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS

In this interpleader matter of Sheriff Krugersdorp v Mark Van Houten and Deon Groenewald N.O , the case arose after a sheriff attached various movable items, farm equipment, game, and shares to satisfy a substantial judgment debt owed to the first claimant. Following the attachment, the judgment debtor claimed that the movable property actually belonged to a trust, and separately alleged that certain game on the property belonged to a distinct corporate entity and a third party. This conflicting ownership assertion prompted the sheriff to initiate interpleader proceedings to let the court determine who legally owned the attached items.

The legal proceedings involved several complex procedural disputes, including arguments regarding whether the first claimant was barred from proceeding due to a minor late filing of particulars. The second claimant argued that the matter should not be decided on papers alone because the documents provided did not constitute admissible evidence without proper oral testimony.

Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions in the debtors prior statements, where they had variously claimed ownership of the animals personally, through a company, or on behalf of the trust. The court also scrutinized the validity of the trust itself, noting a lack of evidence regarding the initial mandatory donation required at its inception, alongside the irregular practice of a single trustee exercising sole decision-making power. These cumulative factors suggested that the trust may have been utilized as an alter ego to shield personal property from ex*****on. Despite these heavy suspicions and inconsistencies, the court emphasized that it could not make a definitive finding on ownership without testing the versions through cross-examination. Ultimately, the court referred the matter to trial for oral evidence under Uniform Rule 58(6)(c), designating the first claimant as the plaintiff and the second claimant as the defendant.

The judgment serves as a very important lesson on the strict requirements for establishing and maintaining a valid trust, demonstrating that courts will look past superficial structures if a trust operates merely as an alter ego. It also highlights that deeply conflicting claims over ownership and assets cannot be resolved on paper alone when material factual disputes require proper testing through cross-examination.

Your Trusted Advisor (021) 945-4960 | [email protected] | capetownattorney.co.za.

10/10/2026

The Constitutional Court today unanimously dismissed a challenge to the animal well-being provisions in South Africa’s biodiversity law. The NSPCA intervened to oppose the application, and the provisions remain in force.

Read our full statement here: https://nspca.co.za/concourt-rules-animal-well-being-stays/

Address

12/2nd Avenue
Bellville
7530

Opening Hours

Monday 07:30 - 16:00
Tuesday 07:30 - 16:00
Wednesday 07:30 - 16:00
Thursday 07:30 - 16:00
Friday 07:30 - 16:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Myburgh Attorneys Inc posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Myburgh Attorneys Inc:

Shortcuts

Share

Category