Knipe and Others v Noordman N.O. and Others (4817/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 167 (22 September 2016)

Knipe and Others v Noordman N.O. and Others (4817/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 167 (22 September 2016)

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion appropriately in allowing costs for the perusal of documents from related matters, as these were referenced by the applicants and relevant to the respondents' preparation. The fee agreement of R1 800.00 per hour was justified by the punitive attorney and client costs order, and was neither unreasonable nor exorbitant given the complexity and seniority involved. However, the Taxing Master conceded that charges for tea and lunch breaks during court attendance should have been excluded. The court held that the Taxing Master's decision was reasonable and realistic, and there were no grounds for interference except regarding the...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 167
Parties
Applicant: JDJ Knipe; Applicant: ABJ Knipe; Applicant: JMJ Vigne; Respondent: O A Noordman N.O.; Respondent: CB St Clair Cooper N.O.; Respondent: SM Rampoporo N.O.; Respondent: C J K Lotz; Respondent: R P J Knipe; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Case Number
4817/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
The review of taxation is partly upheld and partly dismissed. The taxation is set aside and referred back to the Taxing Master for reconsideration and retaxation on the drafting fee, taxation fee, and item 545. The remainder of the review is dismissed.
Judges
Mathebula, AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Fee Agreement, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Fee Agreement 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JDJ Knipe

Applicant

ABJ Knipe

Applicant

JMJ Vigne

Applicant

O A Noordman N.O.

Respondent

CB St Clair Cooper N.O.

Respondent

SM Rampoporo N.O.

Respondent

C J K Lotz

Respondent

R P J Knipe

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in allowing items on the taxed bills of costs relating to documents not placed before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the fee agreement of R1 800.00 per hour between attorney and client should bind the applicants, or whether the Uniform Rules tariff applies.
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Master correctly exercised her discretion in allowing drafting and taxation fees despite more than 20% of the bill being taxed off.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion appropriately in allowing costs for the perusal of documents from related matters, as these were referenced by the applicants and relevant to the respondents' preparation. The fee agreement of R1 800.00 per hour was justified by the punitive attorney and client costs order, and was neither unreasonable nor exorbitant given the complexity and seniority involved. However, the Taxing Master conceded that charges for tea and lunch breaks during court attendance should have been excluded. The court held that the Taxing Master's decision was reasonable and realistic, and there were no grounds for interference except regarding the...

Court Disposition

The review of taxation is partly upheld and partly dismissed. The taxation is set aside and referred back to the Taxing Master for reconsideration and retaxation on the drafting fee, taxation fee, and item 545. The remainder of the review is dismissed.

Orders

  • The taxation is set aside and referred back to the Taxing Master for reconsideration and retaxation on the drafting fee, taxation fee, and item 545.
  • The remainder of the review is dismissed.