Johannes v Franz Maritz Attorneys (898/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 100 (8 September 2020)

Johannes v Franz Maritz Attorneys (898/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 100 (8 September 2020)

The court found that the first Contingency Fee Agreement entered into by the applicant's father was unenforceable as the applicant was already a major at the time. The respondent failed to produce the original agreement and could not substantiate its validity. The second Contingency Fee Agreement was concluded only a month before settlement and did not justify the respondent retaining 25% of the applicant's award. The court held that the respondent's conduct was unconscionable, excessive, and extortionate, and that the fee claimed was not proportionate to the work performed. The respondent's actions in obtaining loans from the applicant and retaining excessive fees were found to be...

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 100
Parties
Applicant: Romario Kyle Johannes; Respondent: Franz Maritz Attorneys
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2020
Case Number
898/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Both Contingency Fee Agreements set aside. Respondent ordered to disclose sums received, produce bill of costs, make interim and final payments to applicant, and pay costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreements, Attorney Client Fees, Road Accident Fund Claims, Judicial Oversight of Fee Agreements
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contingency Fee Agreements Attorney Client Fees Road Accident Fund Claims Judicial Oversight of Fee Agreements

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Romario Kyle Johannes

Applicant

Franz Maritz Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Contingency Fee Agreement entered into by the applicant's father is enforceable against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the second Contingency Fee Agreement concluded with the applicant is valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to retain 25% of the applicant's award under the Contingency Fee Agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first Contingency Fee Agreement entered into by the applicant's father was unenforceable as the applicant was already a major at the time. The respondent failed to produce the original agreement and could not substantiate its validity. The second Contingency Fee Agreement was concluded only a month before settlement and did not justify the respondent retaining 25% of the applicant's award. The court held that the respondent's conduct was unconscionable, excessive, and extortionate, and that the fee claimed was not proportionate to the work performed. The respondent's actions in obtaining loans from the applicant and retaining excessive fees were found to be...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Both Contingency Fee Agreements set aside. Respondent ordered to disclose sums received, produce bill of costs, make interim and final payments to applicant, and pay costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The Contingency Fee Agreement entered into between Aubrey Johannes and the respondent on 7 April 2016 is declared unenforceable against the applicant, invalid, and is set aside.
  • The Contingency Fee Agreement entered into between the applicant and the respondent on 20 June 2017 is declared unlawful, invalid, and is set aside.