Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd v Bartie (2019/21688) [2023] ZAGPJHC 859 (2 August 2023)

Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd v Bartie (2019/21688) [2023] ZAGPJHC 859 (2 August 2023)

The court found that the respondent, as dominus litis, failed to comply with the Practice Directive by not arranging for a joint practice note or uploading the evidence bundle timeously. Although both parties share responsibility, the applicant took active steps to comply, while the respondent did not assist. The court rejected the respondent’s arguments regarding the format and timing of the draft practice note, finding that only the applicant attempted compliance. The court held that the applicant is entitled to wasted costs occasioned by the removal from the roll, but not to punitive costs or preparation costs, as no case was made out for such orders. The costs of the application are...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 859
Parties
Applicant: Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bartie, Amanda
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2023
Case Number
2019/21688
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Costs Application Following Removal From Trial Roll
Outcome
The respondent (plaintiff) is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the trial roll on 11 April 2022 and the costs of this application. All other costs, including preparation costs, are reserved for determination by the trial court.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Practice Directive Non Compliance, Wasted Costs, Joint Practice Note, Trial Removal
Civil Procedure Practice Directive Non Compliance Wasted Costs Joint Practice Note Trial Removal

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bartie, Amanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Costs Application Following Removal From Trial Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (plaintiff) should be ordered to pay wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the trial roll due to failure to file a joint practice note.
  2. 2 Whether the costs of preparation for trial and punitive costs should be awarded to the applicant (defendant).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, as dominus litis, failed to comply with the Practice Directive by not arranging for a joint practice note or uploading the evidence bundle timeously. Although both parties share responsibility, the applicant took active steps to comply, while the respondent did not assist. The court rejected the respondent’s arguments regarding the format and timing of the draft practice note, finding that only the applicant attempted compliance. The court held that the applicant is entitled to wasted costs occasioned by the removal from the roll, but not to punitive costs or preparation costs, as no case was made out for such orders. The costs of the application are...

Court Disposition

The respondent (plaintiff) is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the trial roll on 11 April 2022 and the costs of this application. All other costs, including preparation costs, are reserved for determination by the trial court.

Orders

  • The respondent (plaintiff) is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the trial roll on 11 April 2022.
  • All other costs, including preparation costs, remain reserved for determination by the trial court.