Brisen Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Farmsecure (Pty) Ltd and Others (4137/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 169 (23 December 2010)

Brisen Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Farmsecure (Pty) Ltd and Others (4137/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 169 (23 December 2010)

The court found that adequate notice of the taxation was given to the respondent's attorneys by the Taxing Master, who personally communicated the new date and time. The respondent's absence was due to its own representatives' failure to clarify the correct date, not any irregularity by the Taxing Master. The Taxing Master was therefore entitled to proceed with the taxation in the respondent's absence. However, upon review and oral evidence, it was established that certain items in the bill of costs (items 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31) should have been partially taxed off in accordance with the earlier costs order in favour of the respondent. The bill of costs was remitted to the Taxing Master...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 169
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Mr Savva Christofi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Case Number
3568/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation by Judge in Chambers Under Rule 48
Outcome
The bill of costs is remitted to the Taxing Master to correct items 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
H Murray
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Notice of Taxation, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Notice of Taxation Attorney and Client 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Applicant

Mr Savva Christofi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation by Judge in Chambers Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master was entitled to proceed with taxation in the absence of the Defendant's representative.
  2. 2 Whether the items objected to by the Defendant were erroneously allowed by the Taxing Master contrary to the costs order in Defendant's favour.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that adequate notice of the taxation was given to the respondent's attorneys by the Taxing Master, who personally communicated the new date and time. The respondent's absence was due to its own representatives' failure to clarify the correct date, not any irregularity by the Taxing Master. The Taxing Master was therefore entitled to proceed with the taxation in the respondent's absence. However, upon review and oral evidence, it was established that certain items in the bill of costs (items 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31) should have been partially taxed off in accordance with the earlier costs order in favour of the respondent. The bill of costs was remitted to the Taxing Master...

Court Disposition

The bill of costs is remitted to the Taxing Master to correct items 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The bill of costs is remitted to the Taxing Master to correct items 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.