Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated v Goldberg (686/07) [2009] ZASCA 15 (19 March 2009)

Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated v Goldberg (686/07) [2009] ZASCA 15 (19 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the fee agreement between Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated and Goldberg was void due to overreaching. The evidence showed that the agreed fee of R450,000 was grossly excessive and bore no reasonable relationship to the work performed, as the attorney could not account for the time spent and failed to keep records. The court held that Goldberg was outwitted by Melamed, who exacted the agreement while she was in a state of euphoria, without allowing her time to consider or negotiate the fee. The court confirmed that, in such circumstances, the agreement must be set aside and the attorney's claim for fees referred to the Law Society for assessment. The...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 15
Parties
Appellant: Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated; Respondent: Marlene Goldberg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2009
Case Number
686/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The fee agreement is void and the attorney's claim for fees must be assessed by the Law Society.
Judges
Streicher, Mthiyane, Lewis, Mhlantla, Leach
Legal Topics
Attorney Fees, Overreaching, Fee Agreement Voidness, Law Society Assessment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Fees Overreaching Fee Agreement Voidness Law Society Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated

Appellant

Marlene Goldberg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fee agreement between the attorney and client is void due to overreaching and excessiveness.
  2. 2 Whether the high court was correct to refer the attorney's fee to the Law Society for assessment.
  3. 3 Whether the agreed fee bears a reasonable relationship to the work performed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the fee agreement between Melamed & Hurwitz Incorporated and Goldberg was void due to overreaching. The evidence showed that the agreed fee of R450,000 was grossly excessive and bore no reasonable relationship to the work performed, as the attorney could not account for the time spent and failed to keep records. The court held that Goldberg was outwitted by Melamed, who exacted the agreement while she was in a state of euphoria, without allowing her time to consider or negotiate the fee. The court confirmed that, in such circumstances, the agreement must be set aside and the attorney's claim for fees referred to the Law Society for assessment. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The fee agreement is void and the attorney's claim for fees must be assessed by the Law Society.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The agreement between the parties as to payment of a fee of R450,000 to the plaintiff is void.