Patrinos v Cooper and Others (1666/2010) [2013] ZAFSHC 207 (14 November 2013)

Patrinos v Cooper and Others (1666/2010) [2013] ZAFSHC 207 (14 November 2013)

The court found that the applicant's objections to the piecemeal submission of bills did not result in unfair disadvantage, as the percentage allowed on different amounts would yield the same end result. The court held that attorneys are entitled to peruse all documents, and such perusal is not duplicative even if counsel has already done so. However, where the litigant is an attorney or advocate, consultation times should be reduced, and certain items should be taxed off or reduced accordingly. The court further held that VAT is not allowable on taxation where the litigant or counsel is a VAT vendor, as such VAT is offset with the Receiver of Revenue. The review application succeeded to...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 207
Parties
Applicant: Vasiliki Patrinos; Respondent: Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper; Respondent: Panagiotis Patrinos; Respondent: Dr Patrinos Incorporated
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Case Number
1666/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation
Outcome
The applicant's review application succeeds to the extent indicated in the judgment.
Judges
N W Phalatsi
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Vat on Legal Fees, Attorney and Own Client Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Vat on Legal Fees Attorney and Own 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasiliki Patrinos

Applicant

Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper

Respondent

Panagiotis Patrinos

Respondent

Dr Patrinos Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxation of the bill of costs was conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules.
  2. 2 Whether VAT is allowable on taxation where the litigant is a VAT vendor.
  3. 3 Whether fees for perusal and consultation by an attorney who is also a litigant should be reduced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's objections to the piecemeal submission of bills did not result in unfair disadvantage, as the percentage allowed on different amounts would yield the same end result. The court held that attorneys are entitled to peruse all documents, and such perusal is not duplicative even if counsel has already done so. However, where the litigant is an attorney or advocate, consultation times should be reduced, and certain items should be taxed off or reduced accordingly. The court further held that VAT is not allowable on taxation where the litigant or counsel is a VAT vendor, as such VAT is offset with the Receiver of Revenue. The review application succeeded to...

Court Disposition

The applicant's review application succeeds to the extent indicated in the judgment.

Orders

  • The applicant’s review application succeeds to the extent indicated in this judgment.
  • The taxing master is directed to adjust the allocation accordingly.