Drywonder (Pty) Ltd and Another v Carpet Dryclean CC and Others; in re: Carpet Dryclean CC and Another v Drywonder (Pty) Ltd and Another (75564/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 323; 2017 BIP 189 (GP) (15 June 2017)

Drywonder (Pty) Ltd and Another v Carpet Dryclean CC and Others; in re: Carpet Dryclean CC and Another v Drywonder (Pty) Ltd and Another (75564/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 323; 2017 BIP 189 (GP) (15 June 2017)

The court found that the urgent and main application had come to an end due to the abandonment of all relief sought therein, and the issues raised would not be revisited in the pending trial action. The declaration filed introduced a new and different cause of action, rendering the costs incurred in the urgent/main application wasted. The applicants' conduct, including the unexplained change in approach, warranted judicial sanction. The court held that the respondents in the urgent/main application were entitled to their costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel where applicable, and that the costs of the present application for wasted costs should...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 323
Parties
Applicant: Drywonder (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Roy Selwyn Bermeister; Respondent: Carpet Dryclean CC; Respondent: Wayne Halliday; Respondent: Two Oceans Marketing (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Case Number
75564/2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Determination and Awarding of Wasted Costs Following Abandonment of Relief in Main Application
Outcome
Application for wasted costs granted. Applicants in the main application ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where applicable, and costs of the present application.
Judges
C J Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Punitive Costs, Abandonment of Relief, Interlocutory Application
Civil Procedure Costs Award Punitive Costs Abandonment of Relief Interlocutory 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drywonder (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Roy Selwyn Bermeister

Applicant

Carpet Dryclean CC

Respondent

Wayne Halliday

Respondent

Two Oceans Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Determination and Awarding of Wasted Costs Following Abandonment of Relief in Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants in the main application should be ordered to pay wasted costs following the abandonment of relief.
  2. 2 Whether the costs should be awarded on a punitive attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the urgent/main application are to be determined separately from the trial action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgent and main application had come to an end due to the abandonment of all relief sought therein, and the issues raised would not be revisited in the pending trial action. The declaration filed introduced a new and different cause of action, rendering the costs incurred in the urgent/main application wasted. The applicants' conduct, including the unexplained change in approach, warranted judicial sanction. The court held that the respondents in the urgent/main application were entitled to their costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel where applicable, and that the costs of the present application for wasted costs should...

Court Disposition

Application for wasted costs granted. Applicants in the main application ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where applicable, and costs of the present application.

Orders

  • The applicants in the main application, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, are ordered to pay the costs of the application determined by Ranched, J., per his judgment dated 27 May 2016, including the costs reserved by the Urgent Court on 13 October 2015.
  • Such order for costs is on the attorney and client scale.