Southey v Scheepers (2996/2016) [2021] ZAECGHC 46 (11 May 2021)

Southey v Scheepers (2996/2016) [2021] ZAECGHC 46 (11 May 2021)

The court found that the respondent's repeated failure to arrange the expert examination in accordance with the Rules, the unexplained delay in responding to correspondence, and the late filing of a crucial expert report created substantial prejudice to the applicant and rendered proper trial preparation impossible. The respondent's conduct was the sole cause of the postponement. The applicant was entitled to time to address the new expert evidence, and the respondent's attempts to shift blame were unfounded. The circumstances warranted a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale against the respondent, covering the wasted costs of the trial day, the application to postpone,...

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Shane Southey; Respondent: The Executor of Estate Late Pierre Scheepers
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2021
Case Number
2996/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Postponement and Costs Order Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
M.J. Lowe
Legal Topics
Postponement of Trial, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Costs, Expert Evidence, Rule 36 Examination
Civil Procedure Postponement of Trial Costs Award Attorney and Client Costs Expert Evidence Rule 36 Examination

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Southey

Applicant

The Executor of Estate Late Pierre Scheepers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Postponement and Costs Order Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the postponement of the trial should be granted.
  2. 2 Who is responsible for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
  3. 3 On what scale costs should be awarded for the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's repeated failure to arrange the expert examination in accordance with the Rules, the unexplained delay in responding to correspondence, and the late filing of a crucial expert report created substantial prejudice to the applicant and rendered proper trial preparation impossible. The respondent's conduct was the sole cause of the postponement. The applicant was entitled to time to address the new expert evidence, and the respondent's attempts to shift blame were unfounded. The circumstances warranted a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale against the respondent, covering the wasted costs of the trial day, the application to postpone,...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The trial set down on 26 April 2021 is postponed sine die.
  • Respondent is to pay the wasted costs occasioned by such postponement on 26 April 2021 including the costs of the application to postpone itself and those of the day of argument on 30 April 2021.