Schroeder NO v ABSA Bank Limited (15794/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 88 (10 May 2010)

Schroeder NO v ABSA Bank Limited (15794/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 88 (10 May 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in persisting with the summary judgment application despite being warned of substantive defences and the futility of the claim. The estate is insolvent, and the plaintiff, acting in a representative capacity, would not be able to satisfy any adverse costs order. The litigation was found to be reckless and vexatious, given the history of unsuccessful related litigation, unexplained delays, and the manner in which the plaintiff conducted proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs for the summary judgment application on an attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, and to furnish...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 88
Parties
Plaintiff: Hein Helmut Schroeder N.O.; Defendant: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2010
Case Number
15794/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment Costs and Security for Costs
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for summary judgment costs is dismissed; plaintiff is ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis. Plaintiff is ordered to furnish security for defendant's costs; action is stayed until security is provided.
Judges
Bozalek
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Negotiable Instruments, Prescription, Locus Standi
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Summary Judgment Security for Costs Negotiable Instruments Prescription Locus Standi

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hein Helmut Schroeder N.O.

Plaintiff

ABSA Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment Costs and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs for the summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to furnish security for the defendant's costs in the main action.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to litigate on behalf of the deceased estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in persisting with the summary judgment application despite being warned of substantive defences and the futility of the claim. The estate is insolvent, and the plaintiff, acting in a representative capacity, would not be able to satisfy any adverse costs order. The litigation was found to be reckless and vexatious, given the history of unsuccessful related litigation, unexplained delays, and the manner in which the plaintiff conducted proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs for the summary judgment application on an attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, and to furnish...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for summary judgment costs is dismissed; plaintiff is ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis. Plaintiff is ordered to furnish security for defendant's costs; action is stayed until security is provided.

Orders

  • Plaintiff shall pay defendant's costs in the application for summary judgment on the attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, payable immediately.
  • Plaintiff is directed to furnish security for the costs of defendant in an amount and form to be determined by the Registrar.