EPA Development (Pty) Limited v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (40972/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 463 (2 July 2018)

EPA Development (Pty) Limited v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (40972/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 463 (2 July 2018)

The court found that the applicant's claim to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund was time barred under section 48 of the Attorneys Act and that no proper application for condonation was made to the Board of Control. The explanation for the delay in launching the review application was unsatisfactory and the delay was unreasonable. The Board was not required to exercise its discretion to condone the late claim in the absence of a proper application. As there was no decision to review regarding the time bar, the application for condonation was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 463
Parties
Applicant: EPA Development (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2018
Case Number
40972/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; applicant to pay costs.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Condonation, Time Bar, Discretion of Statutory Body
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Condonation Time Bar Discretion of Statutory Body

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EPA Development (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund was time barred under section 48 of the Attorneys Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Control should have exercised its discretion to condone the late filing of the claim under section 48(2) of the Attorneys Act.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in launching the review application should be condoned under section 7(1) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund was time barred under section 48 of the Attorneys Act and that no proper application for condonation was made to the Board of Control. The explanation for the delay in launching the review application was unsatisfactory and the delay was unreasonable. The Board was not required to exercise its discretion to condone the late claim in the absence of a proper application. As there was no decision to review regarding the time bar, the application for condonation was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; applicant to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs.