King v King (676/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 32 (5 May 2008)

King v King (676/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 32 (5 May 2008)

The court found that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the payment of R10,000.00 by the respondent to the applicant's attorneys must be accepted as full and final settlement of costs arising from the withdrawn divorce action. The context of the payment, being part of an attempt to reconcile, made this inference inescapable. Furthermore, given that the matter was postponed three times with costs reserved and that negotiations were ongoing, it was equitable for each party to pay their own costs for those postponements. The application for further costs was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 32
Parties
Respondent: Trevor Frederick King; Applicant: Magdalena Josina King
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 May 2008
Case Number
676/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Divorce Action
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Action, Costs Award, Divorce Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family and Children Withdrawal of Action Costs Award Divorce Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Frederick King

Respondent

Magdalena Josina King

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Divorce Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant's costs after withdrawing the divorce action.
  2. 2 Whether the payment of R10,000.00 by the respondent constituted full and final settlement of costs.
  3. 3 How reserved costs from previous postponements should be allocated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the payment of R10,000.00 by the respondent to the applicant's attorneys must be accepted as full and final settlement of costs arising from the withdrawn divorce action. The context of the payment, being part of an attempt to reconcile, made this inference inescapable. Furthermore, given that the matter was postponed three times with costs reserved and that negotiations were ongoing, it was equitable for each party to pay their own costs for those postponements. The application for further costs was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party will pay their own costs.