Hay v Road Accident Fund (2019/5932) [2025] ZAGPJHC 278 (14 March 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 278
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wilson
- Case number
- 46032/2018
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wilson
- Case number
- 46032/2018
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the mortgage loan agreement between the parties expressly provided for costs on the attorney and client scale in the event of enforcement proceedings. The applicants prosecuted the application in a half-hearted manner, failing to file heads of argument and allowing the matter to drift, which necessitated the respondents' intervention to set the matter down. In light of the contractual provision and the applicants' conduct, the court held that a costs order on the attorney and client scale was both necessary and appropriate. The application was accordingly withdrawn with costs awarded against the applicants on the attorney and client scale.
Court disposition
Application withdrawn by leave; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The applicants are given leave to withdraw their application.
- The applicants are directed to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and client.
02
Material facts
Parties
Teresa Thring and Another
ApplicantABSA Bank Limited and Others
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission and Withdrawal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Should the applicants be permitted to withdraw their application for rescission of the reserve price order.
- 02
What is the appropriate scale of costs to be awarded against the applicants upon withdrawal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the applicants indicated their intention to withdraw the application and tendered costs on the party and party scale.
- Respondent
- ABSA Bank Limited agreed to the withdrawal but argued that costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale, relying on the mortgage loan agreement and the manner in which the application was prosecuted.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Standard mortgage loan agreement terms
Where a contract provides for costs on the attorney and client scale in enforcement proceedings, the court should ordinarily give effect to that provision unless there are compelling reasons not to.
- 02
General principles of South African civil procedure
The conduct of parties in litigation, including delay and failure to prosecute an application diligently, may justify a punitive costs order.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the mortgage loan agreement between the parties expressly provided for costs on the attorney and client scale in the event of enforcement proceedings. The applicants prosecuted the application in a half-hearted manner, failing to file heads of argument and allowing the matter to drift, which necessitated the respondents' intervention to set the matter down. In light of the contractual provision and the applicants' conduct, the court held that a costs order on the attorney and client scale was both necessary and appropriate. The application was accordingly withdrawn with costs awarded against the applicants on the attorney and client scale.
Obiter and limits
- Litigants should prosecute applications diligently and in accordance with the rules to avoid adverse costs consequences.
- Contractual provisions regarding costs will generally be enforced by the court unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
Court disposition
Application withdrawn by leave; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
- The applicants are given leave to withdraw their application.
- The applicants are directed to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and client.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 46032/2018
DATE: 29-07-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 29 July 2025
In the matter between
TERESA
THRING AND ANOTHER
Applicants
and
ABSA BANK LIMITED AND
OTHERS
Respondents
JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE
WILSON, J: This is an application to rescind an order of Pillay AJ, granted some three years ago, which set a reserve price on a property bonded to the first respondent, ABSA Bank. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the applicants informed me that the applicants wish to withdraw their application with a tender for costs on the party and party scale. ABSA is content for the application to be withdrawn but seeks costs on the attorney and client scale.
Accordingly, the only contentious issue before me is the scale of costs that should be ordered against the applicants. It is common cause between the parties that the mortgage loan agreement governing their relationship provides for costs on the attorney and client scale in the event and to the extent that the loan agreement needs to be enforced in court.
Moreover, this is a full opposed application, in which papers have been filed, counsel has been briefed, but which has been prosecuted half-heartedly. The applicants did not file heads and let the application drift for several months. The respondents had to file heads and set the matter down. In these circumstances, given what the agreement says and the unfortunate and inappropriate way in which the application was prosecuted, I think an order on the attorney and client scale is both necessary and appropriate.
For all these reasons I make the following order-
1 The applicants given leave to withdraw their application.
2 The applicants are directed to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as
between attorney and client.
WILSON, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
29 July 2025
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.