M and K Accounting and Tax Consultants v Centlec (Pty) Ltd (2197/2011) [2013] ZAFSHC 118 (27 June 2013)

M and K Accounting and Tax Consultants v Centlec (Pty) Ltd (2197/2011) [2013] ZAFSHC 118 (27 June 2013)

The court found that the applicant's late inclusion of a revised invoice, which increased the claim and added new months, materially prejudiced the respondent's ability to prepare its case. The respondent was entitled to rely on the pleadings and evidence previously disclosed and could not reasonably be expected to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 118
Parties
Applicant: M and K Accounting and Tax Consultants; Respondent: Centlec (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Case Number
2197/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement Prior to Hearing of Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application for postponement granted. Applicant ordered to pay wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
Judges
Snellenburg, AJ
Legal Topics
Postponement of Trial, Discovery of Documents, Amendment of Claim, Expert Evidence, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Postponement of Trial Discovery of Documents Amendment of Claim Expert Evidence Wasted Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M and K Accounting and Tax Consultants

Applicant

Centlec (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement Prior to Hearing of Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to a postponement of the hearing due to the applicant's late revision and escalation of its claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct in revising its claim and introducing new documentation shortly before trial prejudiced the respondent's ability to prepare its case.
  3. 3 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's late inclusion of a revised invoice, which increased the claim and added new months, materially prejudiced the respondent's ability to prepare its case. The respondent was entitled to rely on the pleadings and evidence previously disclosed and could not reasonably be expected to proceed without adequate time to investigate and consult experts regarding the new claims. The applicant's conduct necessitated the postponement, and the interests of justice required that the respondent be afforded an opportunity to prepare. The applicant was held responsible for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including the costs of the trial days lost and...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted. Applicant ordered to pay wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Orders

  • The application is postponed sine die.
  • The respondent must, within five days, deliver to the applicant a schedule of documents required as a result of the recalculation of the amount claimed in annexure 'N'.