Schellauf and Another v Taxing Master Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others In Re: Schellauf and Another v Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others (28464/2004) [2007] ZAGPHC 142 (3 August 2007)

Schellauf and Another v Taxing Master Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others In Re: Schellauf and Another v Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others (28464/2004) [2007] ZAGPHC 142 (3 August 2007)

The court held that the applicants, having been declared vexatious litigants, were prohibited from instituting any legal proceedings without the leave of the court in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The application for an interim interdict constituted fresh litigation and required such leave, which was not obtained. The review application and the interdict were therefore irregular steps under Rule 30(1). The applicants were aware of the standing order and its implications, yet failed to comply. The court set aside the application as an irregular step, referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation of contempt, and ordered the...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 142
Parties
Applicant: Terezia Schellauf; Applicant: Rudolf Schellauf; Respondent: Mr Viljoen Taxing Master; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Rooth & Wessels Inc; Respondent: Attorney ABT Van Der Hoven
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2007
Case Number
28464/2004
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside Taxation and for Interim Interdict; Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside as Irregular Step
Outcome
Application set aside as irregular; matter referred for investigation of contempt; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Molopa
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Review of Taxation, Interim Interdict, Rule 30 Irregular Step
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Review of Taxation Interim Interdict Rule 30 Irregular Step

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terezia Schellauf

Applicant

Rudolf Schellauf

Applicant

Mr Viljoen Taxing Master

Respondent

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Rooth & Wessels Inc

Respondent

Attorney ABT Van Der Hoven

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside Taxation and for Interim Interdict; Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants, declared vexatious litigants, could institute proceedings without leave of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the application for an interim interdict constituted fresh litigation requiring leave.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' review application and interdict were irregular steps under Rule 30(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants, having been declared vexatious litigants, were prohibited from instituting any legal proceedings without the leave of the court in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The application for an interim interdict constituted fresh litigation and required such leave, which was not obtained. The review application and the interdict were therefore irregular steps under Rule 30(1). The applicants were aware of the standing order and its implications, yet failed to comply. The court set aside the application as an irregular step, referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation of contempt, and ordered the...

Court Disposition

Application set aside as irregular; matter referred for investigation of contempt; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The applicants' notice of motion for review of taxation is set aside as an irregular step.
  • The matter is referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and determination on whether the applicants are prima facie in contempt of court or any other offence, and for a decision on whether to institute criminal proceedings.