Levenson v Fluxmans Incorporated (14/27502) [2015] ZAGPJHC 48; 2015 (3) SA 361 (GJ) (27 March 2015)

Levenson v Fluxmans Incorporated (14/27502) [2015] ZAGPJHC 48; 2015 (3) SA 361 (GJ) (27 March 2015)

The court found that the contingency fee agreement between the applicant and respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the formalities required by the Contingency Fees Act. The applicant's claim for repayment of fees was not prescribed, as he only acquired the necessary knowledge of the facts giving rise to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Steven Zulla Levenson; Respondent: Fluxmans Incorporated
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Case Number
14/27502
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief and Separation of Issues
Outcome
The contingency fee agreement is declared invalid, void, and of no force or effect. The quantum of the applicant's claim is referred for trial. The respondent is ordered to deliver a detailed statement of account and pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreements, Prescription Act, Declaratory Orders, Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contingency Fee Agreements Prescription Act Declaratory Orders Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Zulla Levenson

Applicant

Fluxmans Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief and Separation of Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingency fee agreement between the applicant and respondent is invalid for non-compliance with the Contingency Fees Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim for repayment of fees is prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether motion proceedings are appropriate for the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contingency fee agreement between the applicant and respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the formalities required by the Contingency Fees Act. The applicant's claim for repayment of fees was not prescribed, as he only acquired the necessary knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt in 2014 following the Constitutional Court's judgment on contingency fee agreements. The court held that motion proceedings were appropriate for the declaratory relief sought, as the facts were common cause and the illegality of the agreement was established. Any factual dispute regarding the quantum of the claim could be separated and referred to trial. The...

Court Disposition

The contingency fee agreement is declared invalid, void, and of no force or effect. The quantum of the applicant's claim is referred for trial. The respondent is ordered to deliver a detailed statement of account and pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The quantum of the applicant's claim is referred for trial, with the notice of motion standing as simple summons and the respondent's notice of opposition as notice of intention to defend.
  • The applicant as plaintiff must file a declaration within 30 days of the order.