Grancy Property Limited and Another v Taxing Master of the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) and Others (1961/10; 12193/11) [2018] ZAWCHC 92 (26 June 2018)

Grancy Property Limited and Another v Taxing Master of the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) and Others (1961/10; 12193/11) [2018] ZAWCHC 92 (26 June 2018)

The court found that the taxing master unlawfully fettered his discretion by refusing to depart from the tariff under Rule 70, despite the complexity and punitive costs orders in the matter. The decision was final in effect and prejudicial to the applicants, warranting review under PAJA. The court held that extraordinary circumstances justified intervention before allocatur, as proceeding with taxation under the taxing master's predetermined approach would have been futile and unjust. The conduct of the taxing master created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the respondents' opposition was found to be dilatory. The court set aside the taxing master's decision, directed the...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Grancy Property Limited; Applicant: Montague Goldsmith AG in Liquidation; Respondent: Taxing Master of the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town); Respondent: Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala; Respondent: Lancelot Lenono Manala; Respondent: Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala N.O; Respondent: Shanti Gihwala N.O; Respondent: Kantielal Jeram Patel N.O; Respondent: Narendra Gihwala N.O; Respondent: Kiran Gihwala N.O
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2018
Case Number
1961/10; 12193/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; taxing master's decision set aside; new taxing master to be appointed; costs awarded against respondents on attorney-client scale.
Judges
Steyn
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Administrative Action, Attorney Client Costs, Judicial Discretion, Uniform Rules of Court, Punitive Costs Order
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Administrative Action Attorney Client Costs Judicial Discretion Uniform Rules of Court Punitive Costs Order

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

Parties

Grancy Property Limited

Applicant

Montague Goldsmith AG in Liquidation

Applicant

Taxing Master of the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)

Respondent

Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala

Respondent

Lancelot Lenono Manala

Respondent

Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala N.O

Respondent

Shanti Gihwala N.O

Respondent

Kantielal Jeram Patel N.O

Respondent

Narendra Gihwala N.O

Respondent

Kiran Gihwala N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master unlawfully fettered his discretion by refusing to depart from the tariff under Rule 70 for attorney-client costs.
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the taxing master constituted a final, reviewable administrative action under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a review and substitution of the taxing master before allocatur is affixed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing master unlawfully fettered his discretion by refusing to depart from the tariff under Rule 70, despite the complexity and punitive costs orders in the matter. The decision was final in effect and prejudicial to the applicants, warranting review under PAJA. The court held that extraordinary circumstances justified intervention before allocatur, as proceeding with taxation under the taxing master's predetermined approach would have been futile and unjust. The conduct of the taxing master created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the respondents' opposition was found to be dilatory. The court set aside the taxing master's decision, directed the...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; taxing master's decision set aside; new taxing master to be appointed; costs awarded against respondents on attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent, taken on 8 May 2017, not to depart from the tariff appended to Rule 70 of the Uniform Rules of Court in relation to any and all items in the bills of costs is reviewed and set aside.
  • The Chief Registrar of this Court is directed to appoint a different taxing master to tax the bills of costs as soon as possible.