Ocean Commodities Incorporated and Others v Standard Bank of S.A Ltd. and Others (211/83) [1984] ZASCA 2; 1984 (3) SA 15 (A) (17 February 1984)

Ocean Commodities Incorporated and Others v Standard Bank of S.A Ltd. and Others (211/83) [1984] ZASCA 2; 1984 (3) SA 15 (A) (17 February 1984)

The Court held that the taxing master was not clearly wrong in his rulings. The longstanding practice of allowing a composite fee for the appeal, which includes preparation and drawing of heads of argument, remains appropriate even after the amendment to Rule 8(1). The lapse of time between drawing heads and the hearing does not justify a separate fee unless the additional work is substantial, which was not demonstrated. Claims for travel and hotel expenses for counsel and attorney were not justified by the circumstances, as the taxing master reasonably considered such costs in the composite fee and the attorney's attendance was not shown to be necessary. The fees claimed by counsel were...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 2
Parties
Applicant: Ocean Commodities Incorporated and Others; Respondent: Standard Bank of S.A. Ltd and Another
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 1984
Case Number
211/83
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Following Appeal
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rabie, Kotze, Joubert, Trengove, Galgut
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Counsel Fees, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Counsel Fees Party and Party 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocean Commodities Incorporated and Others

Applicant

Standard Bank of S.A. Ltd and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Following Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master erred in disallowing separate fees for drawing heads of argument.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing master was wrong in disallowing travelling and hotel expenses for counsel and attorney.
  3. 3 Whether the fees allowed to counsel for the appeal were unreasonably low.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the taxing master was not clearly wrong in his rulings. The longstanding practice of allowing a composite fee for the appeal, which includes preparation and drawing of heads of argument, remains appropriate even after the amendment to Rule 8(1). The lapse of time between drawing heads and the hearing does not justify a separate fee unless the additional work is substantial, which was not demonstrated. Claims for travel and hotel expenses for counsel and attorney were not justified by the circumstances, as the taxing master reasonably considered such costs in the composite fee and the attorney's attendance was not shown to be necessary. The fees claimed by counsel were...

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.