Hendriks N.O. and Others v Grant (6087/2010) [2017] ZAFSHC 196 (26 October 2017)

Hendriks N.O. and Others v Grant (6087/2010) [2017] ZAFSHC 196 (26 October 2017)

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion properly in relation to items 44-47, 50, and 80, as the costs were necessarily incurred in preparation for trial and were properly classified as wasted costs occasioned by the postponement. The defendant's objections to these items were dismissed. However, in respect of item 82, the court upheld the defendant's objection regarding VAT, finding that the Taxing Master should have taxed off VAT in the amount of R4200. The matter was referred back to the Taxing Master to deal with item 82 in accordance with the judgment. The court awarded the plaintiff R800 for costs incurred in opposing the review application, reflecting a...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 196
Parties
Plaintiff: JC Hendriks N.O.; Plaintiff: BL Hendriks N.O.; Defendant: AE Grant
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Case Number
6087/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation of Bill of Costs Under Rule 48
Outcome
The review application is dismissed in respect of items 44-47, 50, and 80, and upheld in respect of item 82. The matter is referred back to the Taxing Master to address item 82 as directed.
Judges
S Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review Under Rule 48, Wasted Costs, Discretion of Taxing Master
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review Under Rule 48 Wasted Costs Discretion of Taxing Master

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JC Hendriks N.O.

Plaintiff

BL Hendriks N.O.

Plaintiff

AE Grant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation of Bill of Costs Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion properly in allowing or disallowing specific items in the bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the costs claimed by the plaintiffs for consultations, perusal of documents, counsel's fees, and expert witness fees were properly classified as wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
  3. 3 Whether VAT on expert witness fees should be taxed off as part of wasted costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion properly in relation to items 44-47, 50, and 80, as the costs were necessarily incurred in preparation for trial and were properly classified as wasted costs occasioned by the postponement. The defendant's objections to these items were dismissed. However, in respect of item 82, the court upheld the defendant's objection regarding VAT, finding that the Taxing Master should have taxed off VAT in the amount of R4200. The matter was referred back to the Taxing Master to deal with item 82 in accordance with the judgment. The court awarded the plaintiff R800 for costs incurred in opposing the review application, reflecting a...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed in respect of items 44-47, 50, and 80, and upheld in respect of item 82. The matter is referred back to the Taxing Master to address item 82 as directed.

Orders

  • The review is dismissed in respect of items 44-47, 50, and 80.
  • The review is upheld in respect of item 82 and the matter is referred back to the Taxing Master to deal with item 82 in accordance with the judgment.