L.M.H v W.A.H (20/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 300 (7 November 2022)

L.M.H v W.A.H (20/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 300 (7 November 2022)

The court found that the respondent is entitled to indemnification for the wasted costs of the postponement, but there was no evidence that the appellant's attorneys acted dishonestly, improperly, or with grave misconduct. The affidavits submitted by the appellant's attorneys detailed their preparations, and the missing documents could not be attributed to them. The respondent failed to make out a case for punitive costs or for costs de bonis propriis. Therefore, the appellant is liable for the wasted costs of 18 July 2022, but not on a punitive scale nor personally by the attorneys.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 300
Parties
Appellant: L.M.H; Respondent: W.A.H
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2022
Case Number
20/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing on Costs After Postponement
Outcome
Appellant is liable for the wasted costs of 18 July 2022; no punitive costs or costs de bonis propriis awarded.
Judges
Molitsoane, Daniso
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Wasted Costs, Attorney and Client Scale, De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Costs Award Wasted Costs Attorney and Client Scale De Bonis Propriis

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.M.H

Appellant

W.A.H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing on Costs After Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's attorneys should be ordered to pay the wasted costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
  2. 2 Whether the costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has made out a case for punitive costs against the appellant's attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent is entitled to indemnification for the wasted costs of the postponement, but there was no evidence that the appellant's attorneys acted dishonestly, improperly, or with grave misconduct. The affidavits submitted by the appellant's attorneys detailed their preparations, and the missing documents could not be attributed to them. The respondent failed to make out a case for punitive costs or for costs de bonis propriis. Therefore, the appellant is liable for the wasted costs of 18 July 2022, but not on a punitive scale nor personally by the attorneys.

Court Disposition

Appellant is liable for the wasted costs of 18 July 2022; no punitive costs or costs de bonis propriis awarded.

Orders

  • The appellant is liable for the wasted costs of 18 July 2022.