Sea Front For All and Another v MEC for Environmental and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government and Others (15974/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 106 (1 January 2010)

Sea Front For All and Another v MEC for Environmental and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government and Others (15974/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 106 (1 January 2010)

The applicants were comprehensively successful in their review application, and the first respondent's decision was set aside as unlawful and invalid on three grounds. Although the first and second respondents conceded one ground and withdrew their opposition on 3 October 2008, they did not concede the other two grounds, which arose directly from the first respondent's failure to carry out her duties lawfully. The applicants were justified in pursuing all grounds, as the third respondent continued to oppose the application. It is just and equitable that the first and second respondents remain liable for costs up to 3 October 2008, and that all three respondents are liable for costs...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 106
Parties
Applicant: Sea Front For All; Applicant: Shirley Joan Rabinowitz; Respondent: MEC: Environmental and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government; Respondent: Director: Integrated Environmental Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government; Respondent: On Track Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2010
Case Number
15974/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination After Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the applicants against the first and second respondents up to 3 October 2008, and against the first, second, and third respondents thereafter.
Judges
S Desai, P B Fourie
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Costs Award, State Liability, Unlawful Decision
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Costs Award State Liability Unlawful Decision

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sea Front For All

Applicant

Shirley Joan Rabinowitz

Applicant

MEC: Environmental and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government

Respondent

Director: Integrated Environmental Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government

Respondent

On Track Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which respondents should be ordered to pay the applicants' costs after a successful review application.
  2. 2 Whether the concession by the first and second respondents on one ground affects their liability for costs on other grounds.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent's continued opposition after 3 October 2008 affects the allocation of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were comprehensively successful in their review application, and the first respondent's decision was set aside as unlawful and invalid on three grounds. Although the first and second respondents conceded one ground and withdrew their opposition on 3 October 2008, they did not concede the other two grounds, which arose directly from the first respondent's failure to carry out her duties lawfully. The applicants were justified in pursuing all grounds, as the third respondent continued to oppose the application. It is just and equitable that the first and second respondents remain liable for costs up to 3 October 2008, and that all three respondents are liable for costs...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the applicants against the first and second respondents up to 3 October 2008, and against the first, second, and third respondents thereafter.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are declared liable, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the applicants up to and including 3 October 2008.
  • The first, second and third respondents are declared liable, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the applicants incurred after 3 October 2008.