Murray v Murray (R855/05) [2005] ZAFSHC 6 (18 August 2005)

Murray v Murray (R855/05) [2005] ZAFSHC 6 (18 August 2005)

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to employ attorneys in Senekal, even though she resided and worked in Bethlehem, because the rule allowing a litigant to appoint attorneys both where she lives and where proceedings are instituted is flexible and equitable. The defendant's objection was found to be thin and unconvincing, as it did not demonstrate that the plaintiff's choice of attorneys resulted in unnecessary or inflated costs. The taxing master's decision was reasonable and represented a proper exercise of discretion. The court dismissed the defendant's objection and upheld the taxing master's decision.

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Estie Murray; Defendant: Jurie Johannes Murray
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2005
Case Number
R855/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Taxation Review Under Rule 48
Outcome
Defendant's objection dismissed; taxing master's decision upheld.
Judges
M.H. Rampai
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Employment of Multiple Attorneys, Discretion of Taxing Master
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Employment of Multiple Attorneys Discretion of Taxing Master

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estie Murray

Plaintiff

Jurie Johannes Murray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Taxation Review Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs for employing attorneys outside her town of residence.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing master correctly allowed the fees and disbursements claimed for work done by the Senekal attorneys.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's objection to the Senekal attorneys' bill was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to employ attorneys in Senekal, even though she resided and worked in Bethlehem, because the rule allowing a litigant to appoint attorneys both where she lives and where proceedings are instituted is flexible and equitable. The defendant's objection was found to be thin and unconvincing, as it did not demonstrate that the plaintiff's choice of attorneys resulted in unnecessary or inflated costs. The taxing master's decision was reasonable and represented a proper exercise of discretion. The court dismissed the defendant's objection and upheld the taxing master's decision.

Court Disposition

Defendant's objection dismissed; taxing master's decision upheld.

Orders

  • The defendant's objection is overruled.
  • The decision of the taxing master is upheld.