Levin v Corrigan (45456/17) [2020] ZAGPJHC 68 (16 April 2020)

Levin v Corrigan (45456/17) [2020] ZAGPJHC 68 (16 April 2020)

The court held that both parties consented to the transfer of the action to the Randburg Magistrates’ Court, and the only issue was the allocation of costs incurred in the High Court prior to transfer. The respondent’s argument that the action would start afresh in the Magistrates’ Court was rejected; the proceedings would continue from the stage reached in the High Court. The court found no evidence that the costs incurred were greater than those that would have been incurred in the Magistrates’ Court. The general rule, as per Rule 50(10) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules, is that such costs are costs in the cause, and the trial court should determine the allocation of costs at the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Robert David Levin; Respondent: Mark Corrigan
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Case Number
45456/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application and Counter Application for Transfer and Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for transfer succeeds; costs reserved for trial court; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Costs in the Cause, Magistrates Court Jurisdiction, Uniform Rules of Court, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Transfer of Proceedings Costs in the Cause Magistrates Court Jurisdiction Uniform Rules of Court Attorney and Client Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert David Levin

Applicant

Mark Corrigan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application and Counter Application for Transfer and Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the action be transferred from the High Court to the Randburg Magistrates’ Court.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs incurred in the High Court up to the stage of transfer.
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to costs on a punitive scale for the application and opposition to the counter-application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that both parties consented to the transfer of the action to the Randburg Magistrates’ Court, and the only issue was the allocation of costs incurred in the High Court prior to transfer. The respondent’s argument that the action would start afresh in the Magistrates’ Court was rejected; the proceedings would continue from the stage reached in the High Court. The court found no evidence that the costs incurred were greater than those that would have been incurred in the Magistrates’ Court. The general rule, as per Rule 50(10) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules, is that such costs are costs in the cause, and the trial court should determine the allocation of costs at the...

Court Disposition

Application for transfer succeeds; costs reserved for trial court; counter-application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application succeeds with costs.
  • This action is transferred to the Randburg Magistrates’ Court, all costs incurred to date being reserved for determination by the trial court.