Jankowitz and Another v Padongelukkefonds (1902/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 21 (25 September 2003)

Jankowitz and Another v Padongelukkefonds (1902/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 21 (25 September 2003)

The court held that items 4 and 21 in the instructing attorney's bill of costs were not recoverable as wasted costs. Preparation fees for the attorney were not allowed since an advocate was instructed for the trial, and the qualifying expenses for the expert assessor could not be allowed without a court order or the consent of all parties. The objections to items 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed, as the costs allowed pertained only to consultations and not to attendance at the inspection in loco. The taxing master's allocation on these items was upheld. The applicants were substantially successful in their objections and were awarded a contribution towards their costs.

Citation
[2003] ZAFSHC 21
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Adriaan Jankowitz; Applicant: Riaan Willem Jankowitz; Respondent: Die Padongelukkefonds
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Case Number
1902/2003
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Taxation Review Following Interlocutory Costs Order
Outcome
Applicants' objections to items 4 and 21 of the respondent's instructing attorney's bill of costs are upheld; objections to items 5, 6, and 7 are dismissed.
Judges
G Van Copenhagen
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Costs of the Day, Review of Taxing Master, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Costs of the Day Review of Taxing Master Party and Party Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Adriaan Jankowitz

Applicant

Riaan Willem Jankowitz

Applicant

Die Padongelukkefonds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Taxation Review Following Interlocutory Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the items 4 and 21 in the instructing attorney's bill of costs are recoverable as wasted costs.
  2. 2 Whether the consultations and attendances listed under items 5, 6, and 7 are properly allowed as wasted costs.
  3. 3 Whether the qualifying expenses of an expert witness can be allowed without a court order or consent of all parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that items 4 and 21 in the instructing attorney's bill of costs were not recoverable as wasted costs. Preparation fees for the attorney were not allowed since an advocate was instructed for the trial, and the qualifying expenses for the expert assessor could not be allowed without a court order or the consent of all parties. The objections to items 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed, as the costs allowed pertained only to consultations and not to attendance at the inspection in loco. The taxing master's allocation on these items was upheld. The applicants were substantially successful in their objections and were awarded a contribution towards their costs.

Court Disposition

Applicants' objections to items 4 and 21 of the respondent's instructing attorney's bill of costs are upheld; objections to items 5, 6, and 7 are dismissed.

Orders

  • Items 4 and 21 of the respondent's instructing attorney's bill of costs are disallowed in full.
  • Items 5, 6, and 7 of the respondent's instructing attorney's bill of costs are allowed in full.