Erasmus v Williams (3364/16) [2016] ZAECGHC 116 (2 November 2016)

Erasmus v Williams (3364/16) [2016] ZAECGHC 116 (2 November 2016)

The respondent's interpretation of the Contingency Fees Act is incorrect. The Act does not permit an attorney to retain up to 25% of a client's award as fees; rather, it allows a success fee based on work done, capped at twice the normal rate or 25% of the award, whichever is less. The respondent's retention of R672 413 far exceeds any reasonable entitlement, even assuming a generous attorney and client fee. The applicant is entitled to an interim payment of R250 000 pending taxation, and the respondent must produce a bill of costs and account for his actions. The respondent's conduct, including over-reaching and spurious defences, warrants an attorney and client costs order and referral...

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 116
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Mathys Erasmus; Respondent: Mark Williams
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2016
Case Number
3364/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees Act, Attorney Client Fees, Interim Payment, Costs Order, Legal Accountability
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contingency Fees Act Attorney Client Fees Interim Payment Costs Order Legal Accountability

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Mathys Erasmus

Applicant

Mark Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to retain R672 413 in fees under the Contingency Fees Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim payment pending taxation of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent must produce a bill of costs and account to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's interpretation of the Contingency Fees Act is incorrect. The Act does not permit an attorney to retain up to 25% of a client's award as fees; rather, it allows a success fee based on work done, capped at twice the normal rate or 25% of the award, whichever is less. The respondent's retention of R672 413 far exceeds any reasonable entitlement, even assuming a generous attorney and client fee. The applicant is entitled to an interim payment of R250 000 pending taxation, and the respondent must produce a bill of costs and account for his actions. The respondent's conduct, including over-reaching and spurious defences, warrants an attorney and client costs order and referral...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to pay R250 000 to the applicant as an interim payment pending taxation of his bill of costs, into the trust account of Wheeldon, Rushmere and Cole within seven days.
  • The respondent must produce and make available to the applicant's attorneys a bill of costs on the High Court scale on an attorney and client basis within seven days.