Jonker and Others v Taxing Master of the High Court and Another (2769/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 56 (17 May 2019)

Jonker and Others v Taxing Master of the High Court and Another (2769/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 56 (17 May 2019)

The court held that only those items in the Bill of Costs which were objected to at the taxation hearing could be reviewed under Rule 48. The applicants' objections to other items were belated and could not be entertained. The Taxing Master exercised her discretion correctly in taxing down or disallowing certain items, including travelling and preparation expenses, as corresponding attorneys were available at the seat of the court and the matter was not complex. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the general rule that litigation should be conducted in the most cost-effective manner. The Taxing Master was not clearly wrong, and there...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Hannes Marthinus Jonker AO; Respondent: Taxing Master of the High Court; Respondent: Lambons (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
2769/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs Award, Party and Party Costs, Rule 48 Procedure
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Award Party and Party Costs Rule 48 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hannes Marthinus Jonker AO

Applicant

Taxing Master of the High Court

Respondent

Lambons (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion correctly in taxing specific items in the applicants' Bill of Costs.
  2. 2 Whether objections not raised at the taxation hearing may be entertained on review under Rule 48.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to recover travelling and preparation expenses for their instructing attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that only those items in the Bill of Costs which were objected to at the taxation hearing could be reviewed under Rule 48. The applicants' objections to other items were belated and could not be entertained. The Taxing Master exercised her discretion correctly in taxing down or disallowing certain items, including travelling and preparation expenses, as corresponding attorneys were available at the seat of the court and the matter was not complex. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the general rule that litigation should be conducted in the most cost-effective manner. The Taxing Master was not clearly wrong, and there...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.