Mulder v Kuhn (41405/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 336 (12 May 2022)

Mulder v Kuhn (41405/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 336 (12 May 2022)

The respondent furnished new photographic evidence at the last minute, which justified the postponement of the trial. Although there was no evidence of intentional delay or misconduct by the respondent, the refusal to agree to a postponement from the outset necessitated a formal postponement application, resulting in unnecessary costs. The court found that fairness required the respondent to bear the wasted costs of the trial and the costs of the postponement application, both on a party and party scale. However, the court declined to grant a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale, as the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for such an extraordinary remedy.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 336
Parties
Respondent: Andries Hermanus Mulder; Applicant: Dr AWD Kuhn
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Case Number
41405/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Trial
Outcome
The trial is postponed sine die. The plaintiff/respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the trial and the costs of the postponement application, both on a party and party scale. No punitive costs order is granted.
Judges
Kooverjie
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Postponement, Attorney and Client Scale, Party and Party Scale
Civil Procedure Costs Award Postponement Attorney and Client Scale Party and Party Scale

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Hermanus Mulder

Respondent

Dr AWD Kuhn

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should bear the wasted costs of the trial occasioned by the postponement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should bear the costs of the postponement application.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent furnished new photographic evidence at the last minute, which justified the postponement of the trial. Although there was no evidence of intentional delay or misconduct by the respondent, the refusal to agree to a postponement from the outset necessitated a formal postponement application, resulting in unnecessary costs. The court found that fairness required the respondent to bear the wasted costs of the trial and the costs of the postponement application, both on a party and party scale. However, the court declined to grant a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale, as the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for such an extraordinary remedy.

Court Disposition

The trial is postponed sine die. The plaintiff/respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the trial and the costs of the postponement application, both on a party and party scale. No punitive costs order is granted.

Orders

  • The trial set down for 9 May 2022 is postponed sine die.
  • The plaintiff pays the wasted costs of the trial occasioned by the postponement on a party and party scale.