Samancor Limited v NUM obo Maloma and Another (JR1061/2007) [2017] ZALCJHB 98 (24 March 2017)

Samancor Limited v NUM obo Maloma and Another (JR1061/2007) [2017] ZALCJHB 98 (24 March 2017)

The court found that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to be heard in relation to the bills of cost due to the breach of a binding undertaking by the first respondent's attorney regarding service of documents. This breach resulted in the bills being taxed on an unopposed basis, which was procedurally unfair. The court held that the duty of care and good faith required attorneys to honour such undertakings, regardless of whether a formal notice of change of attorneys was filed. The court further found that the delay in bringing the review application was reasonable, as it was caused by extensive settlement negotiations. The failure to invoke Rule 7A(2)(b) did not render the...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 98
Parties
Applicant: Samancor Limited; Respondent: NUM obo Marifi Johannes Maloma; Respondent: Taxing Master, Labour Courts
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Case Number
JR1061/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; decisions of the taxing master set aside and bills referred back for opposed taxation.
Judges
Barnes
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Procedural Fairness, Undertakings by Attorneys, Review of Taxing Master Decisions
Labour Law Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Procedural Fairness Undertakings by Attorneys Review of Taxing Master Decisions

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samancor Limited

Applicant

NUM obo Marifi Johannes Maloma

Respondent

Taxing Master, Labour Courts

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxation of the bills of cost was procedurally unfair due to breach of an undertaking regarding service of documents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant delayed unreasonably in bringing the review application.
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with Labour Court Rule 7A(2)(b) rendered the application fatally defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to be heard in relation to the bills of cost due to the breach of a binding undertaking by the first respondent's attorney regarding service of documents. This breach resulted in the bills being taxed on an unopposed basis, which was procedurally unfair. The court held that the duty of care and good faith required attorneys to honour such undertakings, regardless of whether a formal notice of change of attorneys was filed. The court further found that the delay in bringing the review application was reasonable, as it was caused by extensive settlement negotiations. The failure to invoke Rule 7A(2)(b) did not render the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; decisions of the taxing master set aside and bills referred back for opposed taxation.

Orders

  • The decisions of the Second Respondent in the taxations of the bills of cost undertaken on 31 May 2012 under case numbers JA57-2008 and JR1061-2007 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The bills of cost are referred back to the Second Respondent for a taxation de novo to be undertaken on an opposed basis on a date to be determined by the Second Respondent.