RWPC Property Bk v Invest in Property 44 (Edms) Bpk (5139/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 1 (6 January 2011)

RWPC Property Bk v Invest in Property 44 (Edms) Bpk (5139/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 1 (6 January 2011)

The court held that Rule 48(1) of the High Court Rules only allows for review of taxation where the party seeking review either objected to specific items during the taxation or where the taxing master disallowed items mero motu. In this case, the defendant did not attend the taxation and did not raise any specific objections. The circumstances were similar to those in Gran-Or (Edms) Bpk v Bevan, where review was refused due to non-attendance and lack of objection. The court found that the expedited and inexpensive procedure provided by Rule 48 is not suitable in cases where no argument was presented on any item and no case could be stated by the taxing master. The application for review...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: RWPC Property BK; Defendant: Invest in Property 44 (Edms) BPK
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 January 2011
Case Number
5139/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Taxation Under Rule 48(1)
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed; no costs order made.
Judges
Wright, R
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, High Court Rules, Costs Award, Absence at Taxation
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation High Court Rules Costs Award Absence at Taxation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RWPC Property BK

Plaintiff

Invest in Property 44 (Edms) BPK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Taxation Under Rule 48(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a review of taxation under Rule 48(1) is competent where the party seeking review did not attend the taxation and did not raise specific objections to any items.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of the defendant at the taxation, due to a misunderstanding, entitles it to review the taxing master's decision.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be made in circumstances where minimal costs were incurred.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 48(1) of the High Court Rules only allows for review of taxation where the party seeking review either objected to specific items during the taxation or where the taxing master disallowed items mero motu. In this case, the defendant did not attend the taxation and did not raise any specific objections. The circumstances were similar to those in Gran-Or (Edms) Bpk v Bevan, where review was refused due to non-attendance and lack of objection. The court found that the expedited and inexpensive procedure provided by Rule 48 is not suitable in cases where no argument was presented on any item and no case could be stated by the taxing master. The application for review...

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The application for review of taxation in terms of Rule 48(1) is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.