Alpherea Financial Services v Grove (6299/11) [2011] ZAKZPHC 55 (1 September 2011)

Alpherea Financial Services v Grove (6299/11) [2011] ZAKZPHC 55 (1 September 2011)

The court found that the taxing master did not err in allowing counsel's fees of R7000.00 as part of the costs occasioned by the adjournment. The fee for heads of argument was considered separately and disallowed as a wasted cost, while the R7000.00 allowed was reasonable and in line with amounts usually permitted for opposed applications. The defendant's argument that the heads of argument fee should be deducted from the opposed application fee was rejected, as the taxing master confirmed that these are treated as distinct items. The circumstances leading to the adjournment were irrelevant due to the prior order that the defendant pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment.

Citation
[2011] ZAKZPHC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Alpherea Financial Services, a division of BMW financial services (South Africa) PTY LTD; Defendant: Carl Grove
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2011
Case Number
6299/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules
Outcome
Review of taxation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Counsel Fees, Adjournment Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Counsel Fees Adjournment Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alpherea Financial Services, a division of BMW financial services (South Africa) PTY LTD

Plaintiff

Carl Grove

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master erred in allowing counsel's fees of R7000.00 as part of the costs occasioned by the adjournment.
  2. 2 Whether the fee for heads of argument should be deducted from the fee allowed for the opposed application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing master did not err in allowing counsel's fees of R7000.00 as part of the costs occasioned by the adjournment. The fee for heads of argument was considered separately and disallowed as a wasted cost, while the R7000.00 allowed was reasonable and in line with amounts usually permitted for opposed applications. The defendant's argument that the heads of argument fee should be deducted from the opposed application fee was rejected, as the taxing master confirmed that these are treated as distinct items. The circumstances leading to the adjournment were irrelevant due to the prior order that the defendant pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Review of taxation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review of taxation is dismissed with costs.