Sher v Lazarus (43167/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 172 (15 November 2011)

Sher v Lazarus (43167/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 172 (15 November 2011)

The court found that while the applicant initiated the postponement, the need for it was caused by the first respondent's repeated delays and failure to comply with deadlines for filing affidavits. However, the first respondent's conduct, though indolent and lacking diligence, did not rise to the level of mala fides or misconduct required for an attorney and client costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on a party and party scale, considering the facts, correspondence, and conduct of both parties. The postponement was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the earlier...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 172
Parties
Applicant: Alan Ivor Sher; Respondent: Michel Lazarus; Respondent: Northern Manor Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Case Number
43167/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement and Costs
Outcome
The application for postponement is granted. The applicant's application for amendment of particulars of claim is dismissed with costs. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the application in terms of Uniform Rule 28 on 11 July 2011.
Judges
N F Kgomo
Legal Topics
Postponement, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Party and Party Scale, Practice Manual Compliance
Civil Procedure Postponement Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Party and Party Scale Practice Manual Compliance

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Ivor Sher

Applicant

Michel Lazarus

Respondent

Northern Manor Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the postponement of the main application should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the costs of the postponement should be awarded on a party and party scale or attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the first respondent justified a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant initiated the postponement, the need for it was caused by the first respondent's repeated delays and failure to comply with deadlines for filing affidavits. However, the first respondent's conduct, though indolent and lacking diligence, did not rise to the level of mala fides or misconduct required for an attorney and client costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on a party and party scale, considering the facts, correspondence, and conduct of both parties. The postponement was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the earlier...

Court Disposition

The application for postponement is granted. The applicant's application for amendment of particulars of claim is dismissed with costs. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the application in terms of Uniform Rule 28 on 11 July 2011.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for amendment of particulars of claim dated 11 April 2011 is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for postponement is granted and the matter is postponed sine die.