Retail Motor Industry Organisation v South African Motor Body Repairers Association NPC and Aothers (41775/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 435 (15 November 2013)

Retail Motor Industry Organisation v South African Motor Body Repairers Association NPC and Aothers (41775/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 435 (15 November 2013)

The court found that the employment of two counsel was warranted up to the point when the fourth to twelfth respondents withdrew their opposition and the first and second respondents filed their answering affidavit. After these events, the complexity and importance of the issues no longer justified the continued employment of two counsel. Both parties were at fault for the manner in which the case was conducted: the respondents should have tendered relief earlier, and the applicant unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings with a lengthy replying affidavit focused on costs. The court determined that the respondents should bear the costs up to the filing of the answering affidavit, including...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 435
Parties
Applicant: Retail Motor Industry Organisation; Respondent: South African Motor Body Repairers Association NPC; Respondent: Compu Corner CC; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Eben Jansen; Respondent: Willem Gouws Pienaar; Respondent: Johannes Maghiel Both; Respondent: Moses John Williams; Respondent: Stephen de Beer; Respondent: James Barry Stewart; Respondent: Andrew Julian Pretorius; Respondent: Gideon Johannes Smith; Respondent: Aleeshen Devinderan Kisten
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Case Number
41775/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Substantive Relief
Outcome
Costs partially awarded to applicant; costs split according to stage of proceedings.
Judges
Jansen
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Trade Mark Infringement, Defamation, Companies Act Section 11, Party and Party Scale, Employment of Two Counsel
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Trade Mark Infringement Defamation Companies Act Section 11 Party and Party Scale Employment of Two 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Retail Motor Industry Organisation

Applicant

South African Motor Body Repairers Association NPC

Respondent

Compu Corner CC

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Eben Jansen

Respondent

Willem Gouws Pienaar

Respondent

Johannes Maghiel Both

Respondent

Moses John Williams

Respondent

Stephen de Beer

Respondent

James Barry Stewart

Respondent

Andrew Julian Pretorius

Respondent

Gideon Johannes Smith

Respondent

Aleeshen Devinderan Kisten

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of employing two counsel were justified in the circumstances.
  2. 2 On which scale the costs should be taxed.
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs after the withdrawal of opposition and tender of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the employment of two counsel was warranted up to the point when the fourth to twelfth respondents withdrew their opposition and the first and second respondents filed their answering affidavit. After these events, the complexity and importance of the issues no longer justified the continued employment of two counsel. Both parties were at fault for the manner in which the case was conducted: the respondents should have tendered relief earlier, and the applicant unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings with a lengthy replying affidavit focused on costs. The court determined that the respondents should bear the costs up to the filing of the answering affidavit, including...

Court Disposition

Costs partially awarded to applicant; costs split according to stage of proceedings.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party and party scale until the filing of the first and second respondents' answering affidavit, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The applicant is to pay all costs incurred thereafter, including the costs of the hearing of the urgent application on an opposed basis and the costs incurred in the hearing of this application pertaining to costs.