Pick n Pay’s Final Appeal Dismissed by Supreme Court of Appeal in Maria Williams Slip-and-Fall Case Cape Town, 28 January 2026
Read Time:3 Minute, 1 Second
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has brought a decisive end to the long-running liability battle in the personal injury case brought by Maria Williams, widow to the late Springbok Chester Williams dismissing retailer Pick n Pay’s final application for leave to appeal, with costs.
The ruling closes the merits phase of the case, clearing the way for the quantification and settlement of damages following a slip-and-fall incident at a Pick n Pay store in Cape Town in 2017.
In its judgment, the SCA confirmed that Pick n Pay had failed to discharge its duty to ensure reasonably safe premises for shoppers, despite having outsourced cleaning services to a third-party contractor. While Pick n Pay was found negligent, the court upheld that the contracted cleaning company, Bluedot, is contractually liable to indemnify Pick n Pay for any damages awarded.
A long road to finality
The case has travelled an unusually protracted legal route. After Maria Williams, succeeded in the Western Cape High Court in September 2023, Pick n Pay pursued multiple layers of appeal, including petitions to the SCA and a reconsideration application under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
All were refused.
In dismissing the final application, the SCA found no exceptional circumstances, no reasonable prospects of success, and no risk of a failure of justice should leave to appeal be denied. Costs were awarded against Pick n Pay.
Settlement phase now unlocked
According to Anthony Batchelor, attorney for Maria Williams of A Batchelor & Associates, the judgment definitively ends the liability dispute.
“This closes the door on the merits of the case,” says Batchelor. “The matter now moves to the quantum phase, where damages will be finalised. Based on current medical assessments, the claim is expected to be in the region of R500,000, largely relating to ongoing and future medical treatment.”
Batchelor confirms that while Bluedot had awaited the outcome of the appeals before engaging, the legal teams will now enter settlement discussions to avoid a further trial on quantum.
“Our intention is to resolve this efficiently and proportionately,” he says. “This was never a case about inflated damages, it’s about accountability and fair compensation.”
Protecting a brand, not avoiding payment
Although Pick n Pay does not ultimately bear the financial liability, it persisted with repeated appeals, citing reputational concerns.
“This was an extraordinary example of a large corporate litigant pursuing appeals to the highest court despite not being the party required to pay,” says Batchelor. “The courts have now made it clear that outsourcing operational functions does not absolve retailers of their duty to customers.”
Legal analysts note that the judgment reinforces established principles of premises liability, particularly the non-delegable duty of store owners to ensure public safety, even where independent contractors are involved.
Relief after years of uncertainty
For Maria Williams, the outcome brings long-awaited closure.
“This has been a long and emotionally draining process,” she says. “I’m relieved that the court has finally brought certainty and that I can now focus on my recovery and moving forward.”
She adds that she hopes the judgment serves as a reminder that ordinary consumers should not have to endure years of litigation simply to have responsibility acknowledged.
What happens next
With all appeals exhausted, the parties will now exchange updated medical reports and attempt to settle the quantum of damages. If settlement cannot be reached, the matter will proceed to trial on quantum alone.
For now, Batchelor concludes: “The SCA’s ruling stands as a firm signal that repeated appeals without merit, even in the name of reputation, will not be indulged.”
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
