Framatome v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (357/2021) [2024] ZATC 9 (28 February 2024)

Framatome v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (357/2021) [2024] ZATC 9 (28 February 2024)

The court held that the Taxing Master erred in disallowing the foreign attorneys' fees solely due to the absence of a certificate from the foreign jurisdiction. The Grindlays case does not establish an absolute requirement for such certificates; rather, it allows the Taxing Master to scrutinise foreign bills as vouchers and to request further information to assess reasonableness. The absence of a certificate does not preclude assessment, but it is desirable for verification to be obtained from an independent third party with expertise in the foreign billing system. The matter was remitted to the Taxing Master for reconsideration of the disallowed item, with Framatome required to provide...

Citation
[2024] ZATC 9
Parties
Applicant: Framatome; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2024
Case Number
357/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 17 Review of Taxation
Outcome
The review succeeded; the disallowance of item 142 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taxing Master for reconsideration in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mabindla-Boqwana JA
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Foreign Attorney Fees, Review of Taxing Master, Certificate Requirement, Duplication of Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Foreign Attorney Fees Review of Taxing Master Certificate Requirement Duplication of Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Framatome

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule 17 Review of Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master was correct to disallow fees charged by foreign-based attorneys in the absence of a certificate from the foreign jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether a foreign attorney's bill of costs can be scrutinised and allowed as a voucher in the absence of a certificate.
  3. 3 Whether the involvement of multiple foreign attorneys constitutes unnecessary duplication of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Taxing Master erred in disallowing the foreign attorneys' fees solely due to the absence of a certificate from the foreign jurisdiction. The Grindlays case does not establish an absolute requirement for such certificates; rather, it allows the Taxing Master to scrutinise foreign bills as vouchers and to request further information to assess reasonableness. The absence of a certificate does not preclude assessment, but it is desirable for verification to be obtained from an independent third party with expertise in the foreign billing system. The matter was remitted to the Taxing Master for reconsideration of the disallowed item, with Framatome required to provide...

Court Disposition

The review succeeded; the disallowance of item 142 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taxing Master for reconsideration in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The disallowance of item 142 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The allocatur is remitted to the Taxing Master for reconsideration on the basis of the principles set out in this judgment.