Hyperception Properties 572 CC v Waterhouse Properties CC and Others (93/06) [2006] ZASCA 109; [2006] SCA 137 (RSA) (21 November 2006)

Hyperception Properties 572 CC v Waterhouse Properties CC and Others (93/06) [2006] ZASCA 109; [2006] SCA 137 (RSA) (21 November 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that although the applicant prosecuted the appeal carelessly and failed to provide a proper explanation for the inordinate delay, the conduct did not rise to the level of recklessness or unreasonableness required for an attorney and client costs order. The litigation was conducted on legal advice and did not warrant an exceptional costs order. The respondents were constrained to accept the applicant's tender of costs on a party and party scale, and no further order was made.

Citation
[2006] SCA 137 (RSA)
Parties
Appellant: Hyperception Properties 572 CC; Respondent: Waterhouse Properties CC; Respondent: Jean-Marie Denis Maurice Moore; Respondent: Juanita Catherine Moore
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Case Number
93/06
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Lodging of Appeal Record; Withdrawal During Hearing
Outcome
Application for condonation withdrawn; costs tendered on party and party scale; no exceptional costs order granted.
Judges
Farlam, Navsa, Malan
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Costs Orders, Demolition Order, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Land and Property Condonation for Late Filing Costs Orders Demolition Order Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyperception Properties 572 CC

Appellant

Waterhouse Properties CC

Respondent

Jean-Marie Denis Maurice Moore

Respondent

Juanita Catherine Moore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Lodging of Appeal Record; Withdrawal During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted condonation for the late lodging of the appeal record.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale due to alleged reckless and unreasonable conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal warrants an exceptional costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that although the applicant prosecuted the appeal carelessly and failed to provide a proper explanation for the inordinate delay, the conduct did not rise to the level of recklessness or unreasonableness required for an attorney and client costs order. The litigation was conducted on legal advice and did not warrant an exceptional costs order. The respondents were constrained to accept the applicant's tender of costs on a party and party scale, and no further order was made.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation withdrawn; costs tendered on party and party scale; no exceptional costs order granted.

Orders

  • No order is made beyond the applicant's tender of costs on a party and party scale.