Ramsay Webber Incorporated v Anastassopoulos (2020/30563) [2022] ZAGPJHC 479 (25 July 2022)

Ramsay Webber Incorporated v Anastassopoulos (2020/30563) [2022] ZAGPJHC 479 (25 July 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to redraw its bill of costs for taxation and claim a higher amount than originally invoiced, as there was no agreement or reservation of rights permitting such an increase. The facts did not align with the exception recognized in Hathorn, since the plaintiff's reservation of rights was made only after the final bill was rendered and did not expressly inform the defendant that a different bill would be prepared for taxation. The written mandate contained a non-variation clause, and no written variation was produced. The revised bill did not correlate with the final invoices, and the agreement between cost consultants did not bind the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 479
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramsay Webber Incorporated; Defendant: Phillipa Anastassopoulos
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
2020/30563
Procedural Posture
Provisional Sentence Application / Judgment on Provisional Sentence Application
Outcome
Provisional sentence refused; defendant permitted to enter the principal case to pursue defences.
Judges
Maier-Frawley
Legal Topics
Attorney Client Fees, Taxation of Costs, Written Mandate, Variation of Contract, Liquid Document
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Client Fees Taxation of Costs Written Mandate Variation of Contract Liquid Document

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramsay Webber Incorporated

Plaintiff

Phillipa Anastassopoulos

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Provisional Sentence Application / Judgment on Provisional Sentence Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an attorney entitled to redraw its bill of costs for taxation after termination of mandate and claim a higher amount than originally invoiced?
  2. 2 Does the absence of a reservation of rights or client agreement permit the attorney to substitute a revised bill for the original?
  3. 3 Does acquiescence by silence or agreement between cost consultants bind the client to increased charges in a revised bill?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to redraw its bill of costs for taxation and claim a higher amount than originally invoiced, as there was no agreement or reservation of rights permitting such an increase. The facts did not align with the exception recognized in Hathorn, since the plaintiff's reservation of rights was made only after the final bill was rendered and did not expressly inform the defendant that a different bill would be prepared for taxation. The written mandate contained a non-variation clause, and no written variation was produced. The revised bill did not correlate with the final invoices, and the agreement between cost consultants did not bind the...

Court Disposition

Provisional sentence refused; defendant permitted to enter the principal case to pursue defences.

Orders

  • Provisional sentence is refused with costs.