Pienaar and Another v Sassman and Another (25559/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1152 (11 September 2023)

Pienaar and Another v Sassman and Another (25559/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1152 (11 September 2023)

The court found that the conduct of the respondents' counsel in pursuing a de bonis propriis costs order against the applicants' attorney was unprofessional and included defamatory language. Although counsel admitted mistakes, the persistence in such conduct was noted. However, as the client confirmed under oath that the instruction to pursue the costs order originated from him, the court reconsidered its initial position. The costs occasioned by the opposition to the de bonis propriis costs order are to be paid by the respondents on an attorney and client scale, rather than against counsel personally.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1152
Parties
Applicant: Harrison Hursiney Pienaar; Applicant: Heidi Julia Pienaar; Respondent: Nathan Edwin Sassman; Respondent: Desiree Elizabeth Sassman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Case Number
25559/2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs occasioned by the opposition to the de bonis propriis costs order against the applicants' attorney are to be paid on attorney and client scale by the respondents.
Judges
Potterill
Legal Topics
Costs De Bonis Propriis, Attorney and Client Scale, Professional Conduct of Counsel
Civil Procedure Costs De Bonis Propriis Attorney and Client Scale Professional Conduct of Counsel

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrison Hursiney Pienaar

Applicant

Heidi Julia Pienaar

Applicant

Nathan Edwin Sassman

Respondent

Desiree Elizabeth Sassman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against counsel on a de bonis propriis scale.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of counsel justified a punitive costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the audi alteram partem rule was observed before awarding costs against counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conduct of the respondents' counsel in pursuing a de bonis propriis costs order against the applicants' attorney was unprofessional and included defamatory language. Although counsel admitted mistakes, the persistence in such conduct was noted. However, as the client confirmed under oath that the instruction to pursue the costs order originated from him, the court reconsidered its initial position. The costs occasioned by the opposition to the de bonis propriis costs order are to be paid by the respondents on an attorney and client scale, rather than against counsel personally.

Court Disposition

Costs occasioned by the opposition to the de bonis propriis costs order against the applicants' attorney are to be paid on attorney and client scale by the respondents.

Orders

  • All costs occasioned by the opposition to the de bonis propriis costs order against the applicant’s attorney are to be paid on attorney and client scale by the respondents.