Nel N.O and Another v Independent Trustees (Pty) Ltd and Others (21570/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 395 (20 November 2013)

Nel N.O and Another v Independent Trustees (Pty) Ltd and Others (21570/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 395 (20 November 2013)

The court found that while the respondents' allegations of vexatiousness and unwarranted attacks by the applicants were not fully substantiated, the applicants' conduct in withdrawing the application at the doors of court, after being forewarned of their failure to meet the requirements for an interim interdict, caused unnecessary expense to the respondents. The applicants were entitled to assert their rights, but their sudden withdrawal without proper explanation justified censure. The court held that, in accordance with established principles and precedent, the applicants should be ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-and-client scale. This order does not detract...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 395
Parties
Applicant: Jan Hendrik Nel N.O; Applicant: Charmaine Nel N.O; Respondent: Independent Trustees (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Liebenberg, Dawid Ryk van der Merwe; Respondent: Asset Auctions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a FNB; Respondent: Trevor Payne; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: The Company & Intellectual Property Commission of the RSA; Respondent: Panamo Properties (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue); Respondent: Pink Parrot Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Christopher John Allanson
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Case Number
21570/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn by the applicants; costs awarded against the applicants on the attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
Shakoane
Legal Topics
Business Rescue, Interim Interdict, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Withdrawal of Application
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Business Rescue Interim Interdict Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Withdrawal of Application

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Hendrik Nel N.O

Applicant

Charmaine Nel N.O

Applicant

Independent Trustees (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Liebenberg, Dawid Ryk van der Merwe

Respondent

Asset Auctions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a FNB

Respondent

Trevor Payne

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

The Company & Intellectual Property Commission of the RSA

Respondent

Panamo Properties (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue)

Respondent

Pink Parrot Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Christopher John Allanson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be ordered to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale following withdrawal of their urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the applicants justified a punitive costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were met by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondents' allegations of vexatiousness and unwarranted attacks by the applicants were not fully substantiated, the applicants' conduct in withdrawing the application at the doors of court, after being forewarned of their failure to meet the requirements for an interim interdict, caused unnecessary expense to the respondents. The applicants were entitled to assert their rights, but their sudden withdrawal without proper explanation justified censure. The court held that, in accordance with established principles and precedent, the applicants should be ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-and-client scale. This order does not detract...

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn by the applicants; costs awarded against the applicants on the attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • This order shall not detract from the order of Wepener J of 12 February 2013 and that of Rautenbach AJ of 20 February 2013.