Pitt v Road Accident Fund (850/2016) [2019] ZAECELLC 6 (5 March 2019)

Pitt v Road Accident Fund (850/2016) [2019] ZAECELLC 6 (5 March 2019)

The court found that the matter was not properly set down for trial on 31 January 2019 because the plaintiff's attorney failed to serve a formal notice of set down as required by Rule 29(2)(b). The Registrar's notice alone does not suffice to set a matter down for trial. As a result, neither party should be penalized with costs for the postponement. The agreement between attorneys regarding costs was not binding on the court, and the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs. The court also expressed concern about the plaintiff's attorney's lack of diligence and directed that neither attorney may recover fees from their clients for the relevant attendances.

Citation
[2019] ZAECELLC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Chantelle Pitt obo Taneal Pitt; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2019
Case Number
850/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Costs Determination Following Postponement
Outcome
No order as to costs; neither attorney may recover fees from their respective clients for the appearance, postponement, and affidavits filed pursuant to the order of 31 January 2019.
Judges
G J Gajjar
Legal Topics
Postponement of Trial, Wasted Costs, Notice of Set Down, Attorney Conduct
Civil Procedure Postponement of Trial Wasted Costs Notice of Set Down Attorney Conduct

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chantelle Pitt obo Taneal Pitt

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Costs Determination Following Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter was properly set down for trial on 31 January 2019 in terms of Rule 29(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff or her attorney should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement between attorneys regarding costs is binding on the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter was not properly set down for trial on 31 January 2019 because the plaintiff's attorney failed to serve a formal notice of set down as required by Rule 29(2)(b). The Registrar's notice alone does not suffice to set a matter down for trial. As a result, neither party should be penalized with costs for the postponement. The agreement between attorneys regarding costs was not binding on the court, and the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs. The court also expressed concern about the plaintiff's attorney's lack of diligence and directed that neither attorney may recover fees from their clients for the relevant attendances.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; neither attorney may recover fees from their respective clients for the appearance, postponement, and affidavits filed pursuant to the order of 31 January 2019.

Orders

  • There shall be no order as to costs.
  • Neither attorney is to recover any fees from their respective clients in respect of their appearance, the postponement, and the affidavits filed pursuant to the order of 31 January 2019.