R.D.V v I.J.D.V (81157/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 209 (24 March 2021)

R.D.V v I.J.D.V (81157/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 209 (24 March 2021)

The court found that the discretion to determine the mode of hearing rests with the presiding judge, as per the Covid-19 directives issued by the Judge President. The plaintiff failed to provide any substantive reason or good cause why a virtual hearing would be inadequate or unjust. Her insistence on an open court hearing was unreasonable and selfish, exposing others to unnecessary risk during the pandemic. The wasted costs incurred due to the removal of the matter from the roll were directly attributable to the plaintiff's conduct. However, the order for wasted costs was limited to two days, as a technical glitch delayed communication of the removal directive to the defendant's legal team.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 209
Parties
Plaintiff: R D V[…]; Defendant: I J D V[…]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Case Number
81157/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Wasted Costs Determination After Removal From Trial Roll
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay the wasted costs of two days resulting from her unreasonable insistence on an open court hearing.
Judges
N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Virtual Hearings, Covid19 Court Directives, Divorce Action
Civil Procedure Family and Children Wasted Costs Virtual Hearings Covid19 Court Directives Divorce Action

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

Parties

R D V[…]

Plaintiff

I J D V[…]

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Wasted Costs Determination After Removal From Trial Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's insistence on an open court hearing justified the wasted costs incurred when the trial was removed from the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the directives issued by the Judge President regarding virtual hearings override party agreement for open court.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff showed good cause that a virtual hearing would be inadequate to achieve a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the discretion to determine the mode of hearing rests with the presiding judge, as per the Covid-19 directives issued by the Judge President. The plaintiff failed to provide any substantive reason or good cause why a virtual hearing would be inadequate or unjust. Her insistence on an open court hearing was unreasonable and selfish, exposing others to unnecessary risk during the pandemic. The wasted costs incurred due to the removal of the matter from the roll were directly attributable to the plaintiff's conduct. However, the order for wasted costs was limited to two days, as a technical glitch delayed communication of the removal directive to the defendant's legal team.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay the wasted costs of two days resulting from her unreasonable insistence on an open court hearing.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the 9th and 10th of March 2021.