Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (10977/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 305 (15 July 2019)

Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (10977/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 305 (15 July 2019)

The court found that the Taxing Master properly exercised her discretion by adhering to the terms of the court order, which specifically provided for the costs of preparation and delivery of trial bundles. The applicant's objections were not raised at the time the order was made, nor was any application for amendment or appeal filed. The review process cannot be used to alter the substance of a court order. The Taxing Master is not empowered to deviate from the court order, and the items in question were correctly allowed. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 305
Parties
Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: The Taxing Master; Respondent: Sehloho TD
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Case Number
10977/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Erasmus AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Party and Party Costs, Court Order Interpretation, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Party and Party Costs Court Order Interpretation Taxing Master Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

The Taxing Master

Respondent

Sehloho TD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master correctly exercised discretion in allowing costs for delivery and preparation of trial bundles as per the court order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can challenge or amend the terms of a court order via review of taxation.
  3. 3 Whether the items objected to are attorney and client costs or properly allowed on a party and party scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master properly exercised her discretion by adhering to the terms of the court order, which specifically provided for the costs of preparation and delivery of trial bundles. The applicant's objections were not raised at the time the order was made, nor was any application for amendment or appeal filed. The review process cannot be used to alter the substance of a court order. The Taxing Master is not empowered to deviate from the court order, and the items in question were correctly allowed. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.