Kampherbeek v Mellet and Another (3093/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 163 (2 October 2014)

Kampherbeek v Mellet and Another (3093/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 163 (2 October 2014)

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised his discretion correctly and judicially in relation to the disputed items on the bill of costs. The time allowed for consultation and the fees for senior and junior counsel were reasonable, given the length and complexity of the affidavits and the involvement of two counsel. The junior counsel's fee was properly limited to 50% of the senior's fee in accordance with Uniform Rule 69(2), regardless of experience. The applicant's objections were not supported by substantive reasons or evidence. Condonation for late service was granted as any prejudice to the respondent was minimal and all procedural steps were taken timeously. The application...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 163
Parties
Applicant: Carl Frederick Kampherbeek; Respondent: Blucher Hauman Mellet; Respondent: Grand Palace Trading 217 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2014
Case Number
3093/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs Awards, Uniform Rules of Court, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Awards Uniform Rules of Court Taxing Master Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Frederick Kampherbeek

Applicant

Blucher Hauman Mellet

Respondent

Grand Palace Trading 217 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master exercised his discretion judicially in allowing, reducing or rejecting items 19, 29, 30, and 31 of the bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the fees allowed for senior and junior counsel were excessive or justified under Uniform Rule 69(2).
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late service of the review application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised his discretion correctly and judicially in relation to the disputed items on the bill of costs. The time allowed for consultation and the fees for senior and junior counsel were reasonable, given the length and complexity of the affidavits and the involvement of two counsel. The junior counsel's fee was properly limited to 50% of the senior's fee in accordance with Uniform Rule 69(2), regardless of experience. The applicant's objections were not supported by substantive reasons or evidence. Condonation for late service was granted as any prejudice to the respondent was minimal and all procedural steps were taken timeously. The application...

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Condonation for late service of the review application is granted.