Myburg N.O. v Rafferty and Another (3798/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 99 (22 June 2017)

Myburg N.O. v Rafferty and Another (3798/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 99 (22 June 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to properly object to the disputed items during taxation and was represented and afforded an opportunity to present oral argument. The reasons advanced for the failure to object were without merit. The taxing mistress exercised her discretion properly in allowing the costs claimed, including those for urgent briefing of counsel and preparation, given the circumstances of the case. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the taxing mistress's decision, as no improper motive or misapplication of legal principles was established. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 99
Parties
Applicant: Alwyn Abraham Myburg N.O. (on behalf of Alwyn Myburg Family Trust); Respondent: Michael Anthony Rafferty; Respondent: Alisca Rafferty
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Case Number
3798/2016
Procedural Posture
Taxation Review / Review of Taxing Master's Decision Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
NM MBHELE
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Rule 48 Procedure, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Rule 48 Procedure Attorney and Client Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alwyn Abraham Myburg N.O. (on behalf of Alwyn Myburg Family Trust)

Applicant

Michael Anthony Rafferty

Respondent

Alisca Rafferty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Taxation Review / Review of Taxing Master's Decision Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing mistress exercised her discretion properly in taxing the respondents' bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to review items not objected to during taxation.
  3. 3 Whether the costs allowed were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to properly object to the disputed items during taxation and was represented and afforded an opportunity to present oral argument. The reasons advanced for the failure to object were without merit. The taxing mistress exercised her discretion properly in allowing the costs claimed, including those for urgent briefing of counsel and preparation, given the circumstances of the case. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the taxing mistress's decision, as no improper motive or misapplication of legal principles was established. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.