Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 149 (11 December 2008)

Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 149 (11 December 2008)

The court found that the taxing master correctly applied established principles and guidelines in disallowing separate fees for preparation and drawing of heads of argument. These items constitute duplication and should be included as part of counsel's preparation for hearing. The guidelines used by the taxing master are correct and supported by relevant authorities. There was no evidence that the taxing master exercised her discretion improperly or on a wrong principle. Accordingly, the review application could not succeed.

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 149
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Cornelius Maartens; Respondent: Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Case Number
1973/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
M B Molemela
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Fees, Uniform Rules of Court, Review of Taxing Master, Duplication of Fees
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocate Fees Uniform Rules of Court Review of Taxing Master Duplication of Fees

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

Parties

Johannes Cornelius Maartens

Applicant

Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK

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 disallowing part of the defendant's advocate's fees for preparation and drawing of heads of argument.
  2. 2 Whether separate fees for preparation and heads of argument constitute duplication and should be disallowed.
  3. 3 Whether the guidelines used by the taxing master are correct and applicable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing master correctly applied established principles and guidelines in disallowing separate fees for preparation and drawing of heads of argument. These items constitute duplication and should be included as part of counsel's preparation for hearing. The guidelines used by the taxing master are correct and supported by relevant authorities. There was no evidence that the taxing master exercised her discretion improperly or on a wrong principle. Accordingly, the review application could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review of taxation is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.