Du Plessis v City of Johannesburg (2010/00255) [2011] ZAGPJHC 186 (20 April 2011)

Du Plessis v City of Johannesburg (2010/00255) [2011] ZAGPJHC 186 (20 April 2011)

The court held that the tariff is clear: attorneys are entitled to charge R177.50 for every necessary telephone call lasting up to fifteen minutes, whether the call lasts one minute or fifteen minutes. The Taxing Master has no discretion to allow only pro-rata costs unless extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case. The alleged practice of charging per minute is unsupported by the tariff or any official practice manual. The Taxing Master's reliance on previous case law regarding reasonableness of counsel's fees was misplaced, as those cases dealt with discretionary costs, not fixed fees under the tariff. Accordingly, the Taxing Master was...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 186
Parties
Plaintiff: Leon Phillip Du Plessis; Defendant: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Case Number
2010/00255
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review succeeds; Taxing Master's taxation set aside and full amounts claimed allowed.
Judges
M Tsoka
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs, Uniform Rules of Court, Interpretation of Tariff, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Uniform Rules of Court Interpretation of Tariff Taxing Master Discretion

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leon Phillip Du Plessis

Plaintiff

City of Johannesburg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master has discretion to allow pro-rata costs for necessary telephone calls under the tariff.
  2. 2 What is the correct interpretation of 'per quarter of an hour or part thereof' in the High Court tariff for telephone calls.
  3. 3 Whether a practice exists in the South Gauteng High Court allowing pro-rata charging for telephone calls.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tariff is clear: attorneys are entitled to charge R177.50 for every necessary telephone call lasting up to fifteen minutes, whether the call lasts one minute or fifteen minutes. The Taxing Master has no discretion to allow only pro-rata costs unless extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case. The alleged practice of charging per minute is unsupported by the tariff or any official practice manual. The Taxing Master's reliance on previous case law regarding reasonableness of counsel's fees was misplaced, as those cases dealt with discretionary costs, not fixed fees under the tariff. Accordingly, the Taxing Master was...

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeds; Taxing Master's taxation set aside and full amounts claimed allowed.

Orders

  • The application for review succeeds in respect of all the items raised. The Taxing Master's taxation in regard thereto is set aside and the full amounts claimed are allowed.
  • No order is made as to the costs of review.