Shapiro & De Meyer Inc v Schellauf (215/00) [2001] ZASCA 131 (27 November 2001)

Shapiro & De Meyer Inc v Schellauf (215/00) [2001] ZASCA 131 (27 November 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant acted within its mandate when it paid counsel for the preparation of heads of argument. The respondent had given a written power of attorney authorizing the appellant to proceed with the appeal, and at no stage did the respondent expressly withdraw or suspend the mandate prior to the work being done. Mere expressions of dissatisfaction or reservations by the respondent did not amount to termination or suspension of the mandate. The appellant was entitled to rely on the original instructions until expressly revoked. The court found no merit in the respondent's challenges to the hours spent by counsel or the nature of the brief, as these...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 131
Parties
Appellant: Shapiro & De Meyer Incorporated; Respondent: Rudolph Schellauf
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2001
Case Number
215/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; application for joinder dismissed.
Judges
Vivier, Marais, Streicher, Mpati, Froneman
Legal Topics
Attorney Client Mandate, Recovery of Counsel Fees, Termination of Mandate
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Client Mandate Recovery of Counsel Fees Termination of Mandate

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shapiro & De Meyer Incorporated

Appellant

Rudolph Schellauf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was liable to reimburse the appellant for counsel's fees paid for preparation of heads of argument.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted within its mandate when it paid counsel for the preparation of heads of argument after the respondent expressed reservations.
  3. 3 Whether mere expressions of dissatisfaction by a client amount to termination or suspension of an attorney's mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant acted within its mandate when it paid counsel for the preparation of heads of argument. The respondent had given a written power of attorney authorizing the appellant to proceed with the appeal, and at no stage did the respondent expressly withdraw or suspend the mandate prior to the work being done. Mere expressions of dissatisfaction or reservations by the respondent did not amount to termination or suspension of the mandate. The appellant was entitled to rely on the original instructions until expressly revoked. The court found no merit in the respondent's challenges to the hours spent by counsel or the nature of the brief, as these...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; application for joinder dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for joinder of Mrs. Schellauf as a party to the appeal is dismissed.
  • The appeal is allowed with costs.