Grogan v Changing Tides (Pty) Ltd (1970/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 105 (25 September 2024)

Grogan v Changing Tides (Pty) Ltd (1970/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 105 (25 September 2024)

The court found that while the claim was substantial and involved architectural aspects that added complexity, it did not require determination of unusual or novel legal issues or interpretation of new legislation. The relief sought was important to both the plaintiff and the public, but the matter did not rise to the level warranting costs on scale C. Therefore, costs on High Court scale B were awarded for the merits hearing up to 30 April 2024, the quantum hearing up to 7 August 2024, and any costs attendant upon payment of the capital amount and agreed or taxed party and party costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 105
Parties
Plaintiff: Felicity Mary Grogan; Defendant: Changing Tides (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2024
Case Number
1970/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Damages Claim
Outcome
Costs awarded to the plaintiff on High Court scale B for specified periods; defendant to pay agreed or taxed party and party costs including counsel's fees on scale B.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 67a, Costs Award, Architectural Negligence, Public Safety in Premises, Party and Party Costs, Scale of Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Delict Uniform Rule 67a Costs Award Architectural Negligence Public Safety in Premises Party and Party Costs +1 more

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

Parties

Felicity Mary Grogan

Plaintiff

Changing Tides (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate scale of costs (A, B, or C) to be awarded to the plaintiff under Uniform Rule 67A and Rule 69.
  2. 2 Does the complexity and value of the claim justify costs on scale C or scale B.
  3. 3 Is the relief sought of sufficient importance to the plaintiff and the public to warrant a higher scale of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the claim was substantial and involved architectural aspects that added complexity, it did not require determination of unusual or novel legal issues or interpretation of new legislation. The relief sought was important to both the plaintiff and the public, but the matter did not rise to the level warranting costs on scale C. Therefore, costs on High Court scale B were awarded for the merits hearing up to 30 April 2024, the quantum hearing up to 7 August 2024, and any costs attendant upon payment of the capital amount and agreed or taxed party and party costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the plaintiff on High Court scale B for specified periods; defendant to pay agreed or taxed party and party costs including counsel's fees on scale B.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay plaintiff’s agreed or taxed party and party costs, including costs of counsel on High Court scale B in terms of Rule 69 for the merits hearing up to and including 30 April 2024.
  • The defendant shall pay plaintiff’s agreed or taxed party and party costs, including costs of counsel on High Court scale B for the quantum hearing up to and including 7 August 2024.