Ronaasen obo Joubert v Road Accident Fund (2286/08) [2011] ZAECGHC 91 (30 June 2011)

Ronaasen obo Joubert v Road Accident Fund (2286/08) [2011] ZAECGHC 91 (30 June 2011)

The court held that the necessity for engaging more than one attorney must be assessed on the facts of each case. In this matter, the plaintiff was severely injured and hospitalized in Port Elizabeth, where it was practical to engage attorneys with offices there. The curator ad litem, appointed to act on the plaintiff's behalf, also practiced in Port Elizabeth, further justifying the engagement of an additional attorney. The court found that it would be unreasonable and contrary to the fair administration of justice to require the plaintiff to change attorneys with each change in hospital location or to restrict curators to the Grahamstown Bar solely for cost considerations. The Taxing...

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 91
Parties
Plaintiff: OH Ronaasen obo Juan Joubert; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2011
Case Number
2286/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48
Outcome
Taxing Master's ruling permitting two bills of costs for taxation is upheld, subject to specified conditions.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Rule 70 Uniform Rules, Curator Ad Litem, Necessity of Multiple Attorneys
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Rule 70 Uniform Rules Curator Ad Litem Necessity of Multiple Attorneys

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OH Ronaasen obo Juan Joubert

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to present two separate bills of costs from two attorneys for taxation.
  2. 2 Whether the engagement of more than one attorney was necessary under Rule 70(8) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Master's ruling permitting two bills of costs should be interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the necessity for engaging more than one attorney must be assessed on the facts of each case. In this matter, the plaintiff was severely injured and hospitalized in Port Elizabeth, where it was practical to engage attorneys with offices there. The curator ad litem, appointed to act on the plaintiff's behalf, also practiced in Port Elizabeth, further justifying the engagement of an additional attorney. The court found that it would be unreasonable and contrary to the fair administration of justice to require the plaintiff to change attorneys with each change in hospital location or to restrict curators to the Grahamstown Bar solely for cost considerations. The Taxing...

Court Disposition

Taxing Master's ruling permitting two bills of costs for taxation is upheld, subject to specified conditions.

Orders

  • The plaintiff may present two bills of costs for taxation, provided that no traveling costs from Uitenhage to Port Elizabeth or Grahamstown are allowed.
  • No duplication of items in the respective bills is permitted as a result of Messrs Le Roux Inc having offices in Uitenhage.