Paarl Post Web Printers (Pty) Ltd and CTP Holdings and Another [2000] ZACT 42 (2 October 2000)

Paarl Post Web Printers (Pty) Ltd and CTP Holdings and Another [2000] ZACT 42 (2 October 2000)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the application on an urgent basis, conceding urgency only after the respondents had filed papers, and failing to timeously advise the respondents of withdrawal, resulted in unnecessary costs for the respondents. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs at this stage rather than reserving them until the complaint referral outcome. The Tribunal declined to award costs on an attorney and own client scale, as Rule 58 confines costs orders to the party and party scale. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the party and party scale.

Citation
[2000] ZACT 42
Parties
Applicant: Paarl Post Web Printers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: CTP Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Republican News Agency
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2000
Case Number
47/IR/A/Jun00
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Costs Order Following Withdrawal of Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Costs awarded against the applicant on the party and party scale.
Judges
N.M. Manoim, M. Holden, D. R. Terblance
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Withdrawal of Application, Interim Relief, Party and Party Scale
Competition Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Withdrawal of Application Interim Relief 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paarl Post Web Printers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

CTP Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Republican News Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Costs Order Following Withdrawal of Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the applicant be ordered to pay the respondents' costs following withdrawal of the interim relief application.
  2. 2 Is it appropriate to reserve costs until the complaint referral is determined.
  3. 3 Should costs be awarded on an attorney and own client scale or party and party scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the application on an urgent basis, conceding urgency only after the respondents had filed papers, and failing to timeously advise the respondents of withdrawal, resulted in unnecessary costs for the respondents. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs at this stage rather than reserving them until the complaint referral outcome. The Tribunal declined to award costs on an attorney and own client scale, as Rule 58 confines costs orders to the party and party scale. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the applicant on the party and party scale.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on the scale as between party and party.