Catling and Another v Constas N.O and Another (26471/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 350 (17 September 2019)

Catling and Another v Constas N.O and Another (26471/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 350 (17 September 2019)

The court found that the settlement agreement made an order of court did not finally determine the costs issues, except for directing that the costs of the review proceedings would be costs in the arbitration. The court was not functus officio and retained jurisdiction to determine costs. Both parties contributed to the litigation: the second respondent relied on erroneous records and initiated proceedings, while the applicants disclosed relevant payments only after most costs had been incurred. Exceptional circumstances justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the result. The second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the arbitration and the present...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 350
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Charles Thomas Catling; Applicant: Blossom Shereen Catling; Respondent: Marina Constas N.O.; Respondent: The Broadlands Body Corporate
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
26471/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Review Proceedings
Outcome
Costs allocated between the parties: second respondent to pay arbitration and application costs; applicants to pay debatement costs.
Judges
F Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Arbitration Costs, Settlement Agreement, Functus Officio, Costs Award, Review Application
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Costs Settlement Agreement Functus Officio Costs Award Review Application

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Charles Thomas Catling

Applicant

Blossom Shereen Catling

Applicant

Marina Constas N.O.

Respondent

The Broadlands Body Corporate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine costs after a settlement agreement was made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the costs issue.
  3. 3 How costs should be allocated between the parties for the arbitration, review, debatement, and present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement made an order of court did not finally determine the costs issues, except for directing that the costs of the review proceedings would be costs in the arbitration. The court was not functus officio and retained jurisdiction to determine costs. Both parties contributed to the litigation: the second respondent relied on erroneous records and initiated proceedings, while the applicants disclosed relevant payments only after most costs had been incurred. Exceptional circumstances justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the result. The second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the arbitration and the present...

Court Disposition

Costs allocated between the parties: second respondent to pay arbitration and application costs; applicants to pay debatement costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent is directed to pay the costs of the arbitration.
  • The applicants are directed to pay the costs relating to the debatement of the account during September 2017.