Ilze Eichstadt Attorneys v Debt Rescue CC (36774/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 262 (8 May 2015)

Ilze Eichstadt Attorneys v Debt Rescue CC (36774/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 262 (8 May 2015)

The court found that the pleadings were not closed due to ongoing amendments and that the defendant was prejudiced by the late discovery of voluminous documents, which prevented proper trial preparation. The application for postponement was made timeously and bona fide, and the plaintiff's opposition was unreasonable, resulting in unnecessary costs. Portions of the plaintiff's opposing affidavit were found to be defamatory, scandalous, and prejudicial, warranting a striking out. The conduct of the plaintiff's attorney justified a punitive costs order de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale, excluding the costs of two counsel. The trial was postponed sine die, and the plaintiff...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 262
Parties
Plaintiff: Ilze Eichstadt Attorneys; Defendant: Debt Rescue CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
36774/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Postponement and Application to Strike Out Portions of Affidavit
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; application to strike out granted; costs awarded against the plaintiff and the deponent of the opposing affidavit.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Postponement of Trial, Striking Out Scandalous Matter, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Discovery and Trial Bundle, Pre Trial Procedure
Civil Procedure Postponement of Trial Striking Out Scandalous Matter Costs De Bonis Propriis Discovery and Trial Bundle Pre Trial 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilze Eichstadt Attorneys

Plaintiff

Debt Rescue CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Postponement and Application to Strike Out Portions of Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be postponed due to late discovery and reopened pleadings.
  2. 2 Whether portions of the opposing affidavit should be struck out as defamatory, scandalous, vexatious, or prejudicial.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the postponement and the striking out application, and on what scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pleadings were not closed due to ongoing amendments and that the defendant was prejudiced by the late discovery of voluminous documents, which prevented proper trial preparation. The application for postponement was made timeously and bona fide, and the plaintiff's opposition was unreasonable, resulting in unnecessary costs. Portions of the plaintiff's opposing affidavit were found to be defamatory, scandalous, and prejudicial, warranting a striking out. The conduct of the plaintiff's attorney justified a punitive costs order de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale, excluding the costs of two counsel. The trial was postponed sine die, and the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; application to strike out granted; costs awarded against the plaintiff and the deponent of the opposing affidavit.

Orders

  • The objectionable matter in the opposing affidavit is struck out. The deponent, Jaco du Plessis, must pay the costs de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale, excluding the costs of two counsel. Mr. Du Plessis has 7 work days to file argument as to why he should not pay the costs de bonis propriis and why...
  • The application for postponement is granted. The trial is postponed sine die. The plaintiff is to carry the wasted costs of the postponement, including the costs of one counsel.