Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (3915/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 158 (24 August 2007)

Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (3915/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 158 (24 August 2007)

The court found that the clients of the second respondent, for whom the bills of costs were taxed, had a substantial interest in the outcome of the review application and should have been joined as parties. Failure to join them amounted to non-joinder, which is fatal to the application. Furthermore, the review application was launched after an unreasonable delay, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the lapse of time between taxation and the institution of proceedings. The court held that entertaining the review and setting aside the allocaturs would prejudice both the second respondent and its clients, whose matters had already been finalized and payments made. In light of these...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 158
Parties
Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: The Taxing Master; Respondent: MacRobert Inc
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Case Number
3915/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
W L Seriti
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Non Joinder, Unreasonable Delay, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Non Joinder Unreasonable Delay Party and Party Costs

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

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

The Taxing Master

Respondent

MacRobert Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was required to join the clients of the second respondent as parties to the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application was brought within a reasonable period after taxation of the bills of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the taxing master exercised his discretion properly in taxing the bills of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the clients of the second respondent, for whom the bills of costs were taxed, had a substantial interest in the outcome of the review application and should have been joined as parties. Failure to join them amounted to non-joinder, which is fatal to the application. Furthermore, the review application was launched after an unreasonable delay, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the lapse of time between taxation and the institution of proceedings. The court held that entertaining the review and setting aside the allocaturs would prejudice both the second respondent and its clients, whose matters had already been finalized and payments made. In light of these...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay, on a party and party scale, the costs of the second respondent.