Gentech Engineering Plastics CC v Zimmer and Others; Gentech Engineering Plastics CC v Reddy and Others (2462/2008) [2013] ZAECPEHC 20 (11 April 2013)

Gentech Engineering Plastics CC v Zimmer and Others; Gentech Engineering Plastics CC v Reddy and Others (2462/2008) [2013] ZAECPEHC 20 (11 April 2013)

The taxing master erred by applying a conservative, party and party scale to the assessment of counsel's fees, disregarding the special considerations and punitive nature of the costs order. The trial court's comments and the circumstances of the case warranted a generous approach under the intermediate basis of taxation, allowing the applicant a fuller indemnity for reasonable costs incurred. The reduction of both senior and junior counsel's fees was not justified, as the taxing master failed to properly consider whether the applicant's expenses were reasonable in light of the respondents' conduct and the special costs order. The bill of costs must be reconsidered, with due regard to...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 20
Parties
Applicant: Gentech Engineering Plastics CC; Respondent: Sheldon Maurice Zimmer; Respondent: Keith Blake Belling; Respondent: Sivalingum Kevin Reddy; Respondent: Ureflex CC; Respondent: Graymaur CC; Respondent: Volkswagen of South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Case Number
2462/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
Review of taxation succeeds. The taxing master's reduction of counsel's fees is set aside and the bill is remitted for reconsideration.
Judges
B C Hartle
Legal Topics
Review of Taxing Master, Attorney and Client Costs, Punitive Costs Order, Rule 70 Departure, Costs Taxation Guidelines
Civil Procedure Review of Taxing Master Attorney and Client Costs Punitive Costs Order Rule 70 Departure Costs Taxation Guidelines

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

Parties

Gentech Engineering Plastics CC

Applicant

Sheldon Maurice Zimmer

Respondent

Keith Blake Belling

Respondent

Sivalingum Kevin Reddy

Respondent

Ureflex CC

Respondent

Graymaur CC

Respondent

Volkswagen of South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master erred in reducing the hourly and daily rates of senior and junior counsel in the applicant's bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the special costs order justified a departure from the generally allowed rates for counsel in the division.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to a fuller indemnity for costs incurred due to the respondents' conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The taxing master erred by applying a conservative, party and party scale to the assessment of counsel's fees, disregarding the special considerations and punitive nature of the costs order. The trial court's comments and the circumstances of the case warranted a generous approach under the intermediate basis of taxation, allowing the applicant a fuller indemnity for reasonable costs incurred. The reduction of both senior and junior counsel's fees was not justified, as the taxing master failed to properly consider whether the applicant's expenses were reasonable in light of the respondents' conduct and the special costs order. The bill of costs must be reconsidered, with due regard to...

Court Disposition

Review of taxation succeeds. The taxing master's reduction of counsel's fees is set aside and the bill is remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The taxing master's rulings in respect of items 59, 137, 158, 165, 216, 366, 397, 421 and 439 in the applicant's bill of costs are set aside.
  • The bill is remitted to the taxing master to reconsider the affected items afresh, with due regard to Rule 70(5)(a), the nature of the special costs award, the circumstances of the applications, the trial judge's sentiments, this judgment, and any further submissions by the parties.