The Trustees of the Simcha Trust v Madeleine de Jong and Others

The Trustees of the Simcha Trust owned property in Cape Town and obtained approval from the City of Cape Town for building plans for a large development. The neighbouring sectional title owners (the first to seventeenth respondents) challenged the approval under PAJA, contending that the plans derogated from the value of their properties and that the City failed to comply with ss 6 and 7 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977, as interpreted in Walele v City of Cape Town. The City did not oppose the review. By agreement, the approval of the plans was set aside. Simcha then sought compensation from the City under s 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of PAJA for losses allegedly suffered due to the wrongful approval of the plans, including costs and fees, arguing that the City had acted negligently in approving the plans contrary to Walele. The High Court dismissed the compensation claim, and Simcha appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case authoritatively clarifies the structure and interpretation of s 8(1)(c) of PAJA, confirming that compensation is not available where an administrative decision is set aside and remitted for reconsideration. It reinforces the principle that 'exceptional cases' concern the choice of remedy rather than the seriousness of the administrative wrongdoing and underscores judicial restraint in imposing liability on administrative bodies.