Mabaso v Road Accident Fund (940/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 215; 2012 (2) 656 (FB) (21 September 2011)

Mabaso v Road Accident Fund (940/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 215; 2012 (2) 656 (FB) (21 September 2011)

The court held that costs relating to quantum cannot be claimed until quantum is settled, the defendant consents to witnesses or the court orders such, and the taxing master fixes the qualifying expenses. The taxing master was correct in disallowing these items at this stage. Regarding settlement negotiations, the court found that all time spent, including consultations with clients, forms part of necessary party and party costs and should not be separated as attorney and client costs. The taxing master acted on a wrong principle by disallowing a portion of these costs. For waiting time at court, the court held that such fees are allowable as party and party costs if the time was...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 215
Parties
Applicant: M M F Mabaso; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2011
Case Number
940/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
The plaintiff's review application fails in respect of costs relating to quantum but succeeds in respect of settlement negotiation and waiting time costs.
Judges
E. M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Attorney and Client Costs, Settlement Negotiations, Waiting Time Fees
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Party and Party Costs Attorney and Client Costs Settlement Negotiations Waiting Time 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M M F Mabaso

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim costs related to quantum before quantum has been settled.
  2. 2 Whether fees for settlement negotiations are taxable in full on a party and party bill or partially as attorney and client costs.
  3. 3 Whether waiting time at court for the judge to grant the order is a party and party cost or an attorney and client cost.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that costs relating to quantum cannot be claimed until quantum is settled, the defendant consents to witnesses or the court orders such, and the taxing master fixes the qualifying expenses. The taxing master was correct in disallowing these items at this stage. Regarding settlement negotiations, the court found that all time spent, including consultations with clients, forms part of necessary party and party costs and should not be separated as attorney and client costs. The taxing master acted on a wrong principle by disallowing a portion of these costs. For waiting time at court, the court held that such fees are allowable as party and party costs if the time was...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's review application fails in respect of costs relating to quantum but succeeds in respect of settlement negotiation and waiting time costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's review application fails in respect of items 11(g), 11(h), 11(j), 14, 15, 16, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 62 of the bill of costs of Podbielski Mhlambi Ingelyf; and items 70, 71, 73 and 74 of the bill of costs of Honey Prokureurs.
  • The plaintiff's review application in respect of item 77 (settlement negotiations) succeeds.