Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction v Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd (15454/2016) [2018] ZAWCHC 164 (6 December 2018)

Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction v Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd (15454/2016) [2018] ZAWCHC 164 (6 December 2018)

The court found that the order of 13 January 2017, granted by agreement, established both the applicant's liability to furnish security for costs and the amount thereof. The correspondence between the parties demonstrated that the applicant consented to provide security, and the only dispute was the form it should take. The order did not record any reservation of rights or denial of liability by the applicant. The court held that, pursuant to uniform rule 47(6), the respondent was entitled to approach the registrar to increase the amount of security if the original amount was insufficient, and the registrar's decision would be final but subject to review. The applicant's argument that a...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 164
Parties
Applicant: Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction; Respondent: Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2018
Case Number
15454/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Security for Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including any reserved costs orders.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Uniform Rule 47, Interpretation of Court Orders, Review of Registrar Decisions
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Uniform Rule 47 Interpretation of Court Orders Review of Registrar Decisions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction

Applicant

Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of 13 January 2017 constituted an order under uniform rule 47(3) compelling the applicant to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to approach the registrar to increase the amount of security for costs under rule 47(6).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's liability to furnish security for costs was established and whether the amount could be increased without a further court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 13 January 2017, granted by agreement, established both the applicant's liability to furnish security for costs and the amount thereof. The correspondence between the parties demonstrated that the applicant consented to provide security, and the only dispute was the form it should take. The order did not record any reservation of rights or denial of liability by the applicant. The court held that, pursuant to uniform rule 47(6), the respondent was entitled to approach the registrar to increase the amount of security if the original amount was insufficient, and the registrar's decision would be final but subject to review. The applicant's argument that a...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including any reserved costs orders.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including any reserved costs orders.