Bruintjies v Williams (3783/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 121 (23 October 2015)

Bruintjies v Williams (3783/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 121 (23 October 2015)

The court found that the respondent, even on his own version, had not paid the applicant the full amount owed and had failed to account properly for the funds received from the Road Accident Fund settlement. The respondent's attempts to delay proceedings through multiple postponement applications and transfer requests were found to be without merit and constituted delaying tactics. The prescription point raised by the respondent was rejected as baseless, given that the funds were held in trust and no proper accounting had occurred. The respondent's conduct was deemed outrageous and opportunistic, justifying an attorney and client costs order. The court ordered the respondent to make an...

Citation
[2015] ZAECGHC 121
Parties
Applicant: Trevino Bruintjies; Respondent: Mark Williams
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Case Number
3783/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted in full; interim payment, accounting, production of bill and file, attorney and client costs order, and referral to Cape Law Society ordered.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Attorney Trust Account, Interim Payment, Duty to Account, Contingency Fee Agreement, Costs Order, Transfer of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Trust Account Interim Payment Duty to Account Contingency Fee Agreement Costs Order Transfer of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevino Bruintjies

Applicant

Mark Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to repay R100,000 as an interim payment pending taxation of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent must produce a bill on the High Court Scale and account fully to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct justifies an attorney and client costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, even on his own version, had not paid the applicant the full amount owed and had failed to account properly for the funds received from the Road Accident Fund settlement. The respondent's attempts to delay proceedings through multiple postponement applications and transfer requests were found to be without merit and constituted delaying tactics. The prescription point raised by the respondent was rejected as baseless, given that the funds were held in trust and no proper accounting had occurred. The respondent's conduct was deemed outrageous and opportunistic, justifying an attorney and client costs order. The court ordered the respondent to make an...

Court Disposition

Application granted in full; interim payment, accounting, production of bill and file, attorney and client costs order, and referral to Cape Law Society ordered.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to repay the sum of R100,000 to the applicant as an interim payment, pending taxation of the bill of costs, by depositing such amount into the trust account of the applicant's attorneys within seven days.
  • The respondent is directed to produce a bill on the High Court Scale on an attorney and own client basis within seven days.