Grau v Van Zyl Inc (26612/11) [2013] ZAGPJHC 184 (3 June 2013)

Grau v Van Zyl Inc (26612/11) [2013] ZAGPJHC 184 (3 June 2013)

The court held that the defendant was entitled to security for costs as the plaintiff is a peregrinus and does not own immovable property in South Africa. The application was not premature since the defendant did not seek a stay of proceedings, and the plaintiff contested liability to provide security, thus entitling the defendant to approach the court under Uniform Rule 47(3). The court found no evidence that the application was brought solely to frustrate the plaintiff's action. The amount of security is to be determined by the Registrar or Taxing Master. However, the application could have been avoided had the defendant agreed earlier to have the Registrar determine the amount, and...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 184
Parties
Plaintiff: Francoise Grau; Defendant: Levin Van Zyl Inc.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2013
Case Number
26612/11
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; each party to pay their own costs of the application.
Judges
P L Carstensen
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus, Uniform Rule 47, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Uniform Rule 47 Costs Award

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

Parties

Francoise Grau

Plaintiff

Levin Van Zyl Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to security for costs from a peregrinus plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the application for security for costs was premature.
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought for an improper purpose to frustrate the plaintiff's action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant was entitled to security for costs as the plaintiff is a peregrinus and does not own immovable property in South Africa. The application was not premature since the defendant did not seek a stay of proceedings, and the plaintiff contested liability to provide security, thus entitling the defendant to approach the court under Uniform Rule 47(3). The court found no evidence that the application was brought solely to frustrate the plaintiff's action. The amount of security is to be determined by the Registrar or Taxing Master. However, the application could have been avoided had the defendant agreed earlier to have the Registrar determine the amount, and...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; each party to pay their own costs of the application.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to provide security for costs in an amount to be determined by the Registrar or Taxing Master of the above Honourable Court.
  • Each party is directed to pay their own costs of this security for costs application.