PFP Professional Forensic Profiling CC and Another v Pieters (34171/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 279 (15 September 2009)

PFP Professional Forensic Profiling CC and Another v Pieters (34171/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 279 (15 September 2009)

The respondent's refusal to deliver the forensic profiling system components, despite her prior undertaking and without valid justification, was unreasonable and necessitated the launching of the application. Her conduct, including only returning the items after being served with the application, was found to be sufficiently vexatious and dilatory to warrant a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney-and-client scale to the applicants, in line with established principles regarding costs awards for such conduct.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 279
Parties
Applicant: PFP Professional Forensic Profiling CC; Applicant: Debra Lee Hemsley; Respondent: Laurie Katherine Pieters
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2009
Case Number
34171/2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Application
Outcome
Application for costs granted; respondent ordered to pay applicants' costs on attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
Mabuse
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Close Corporation Act, Fiduciary Duties, Delivery of Corporate Assets
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Close Corporation Act Fiduciary Duties Delivery of Corporate Assets

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PFP Professional Forensic Profiling CC

Applicant

Debra Lee Hemsley

Applicant

Laurie Katherine Pieters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's refusal to deliver the forensic profiling system components justified the launching of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order on the attorney-and-client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's refusal to deliver the forensic profiling system components, despite her prior undertaking and without valid justification, was unreasonable and necessitated the launching of the application. Her conduct, including only returning the items after being served with the application, was found to be sufficiently vexatious and dilatory to warrant a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney-and-client scale to the applicants, in line with established principles regarding costs awards for such conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted; respondent ordered to pay applicants' costs on attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs of this application on the attorney-and-client scale.