Tanker Project Solutions CC v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (1273/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 146 (28 August 2014)

Tanker Project Solutions CC v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (1273/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 146 (28 August 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose details of any exceptional circumstances or intimate knowledge possessed by the Welkom attorney that would necessitate his attendance at the consultation. The general rule requires more than merely holding primary instructions to justify such costs. Without strong reasons being disclosed, the court could not conclude that the taxing master acted on a wrong principle or failed to exercise discretion. Accordingly, the review was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 146
Parties
Applicant: Tanker Project Solutions CC; Respondent: Matjhabeng Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2014
Case Number
1273/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation of Bill of Costs Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed.
Judges
L J Lekale
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Discretion of Taxing Master, Party and Party Costs, Country Attorney Expenses
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Discretion of Taxing Master Party and Party Costs Country Attorney Expenses

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

Tanker Project Solutions CC

Applicant

Matjhabeng Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation of Bill of Costs Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master erred in disallowing travel costs and expenses of the applicant's country-attorney for attending a consultation with counsel.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances or strong reasons existed to justify the attendance and associated costs of the country-attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose details of any exceptional circumstances or intimate knowledge possessed by the Welkom attorney that would necessitate his attendance at the consultation. The general rule requires more than merely holding primary instructions to justify such costs. Without strong reasons being disclosed, the court could not conclude that the taxing master acted on a wrong principle or failed to exercise discretion. Accordingly, the review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for taxation review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.