Handl v Handl (SA 1 of 2005) [2008] NASC 2 (31 March 2008)

Handl v Handl (SA 1 of 2005) [2008] NASC 2 (31 March 2008)

The Supreme Court found that the Judge's intention was to award costs on the normal party and party scale, not limited by Rule 43(7), and that the Registrar's order failed to reflect this. The appeal was properly before the Court as the judgment clarified the order and was final and definitive.

Citation
[2008] NASC 2
Parties
Appellant: Dawn Caroline Handl; Respondent: Ernst Handl
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
31 March 2008
Case Number
SA 1 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Interpretation of Court Orders, Rule 43 Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Costs Orders Interpretation of Court Orders Rule 43 Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawn Caroline Handl

Appellant

Ernst Handl

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order granted by the High Court was intended to limit counsel's fees to those prescribed by Rule 43(7) or to allow costs at the normal rate
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was properly before the Supreme Court without leave under section 18(3) of the High Court Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the Judge's intention was to award costs on the normal party and party scale, not limited by Rule 43(7), and that the Registrar's order failed to reflect this. The appeal was properly before the Court as the judgment clarified the order and was final and definitive.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant’s taxed costs both in this Court and in the High Court.