Tecmed (Pty) Limited v Hunter and Another (26122/05) [2008] ZAGPHC 41; 2008 (6) SA 210 (W) (18 February 2008)

Tecmed (Pty) Limited v Hunter and Another (26122/05) [2008] ZAGPHC 41; 2008 (6) SA 210 (W) (18 February 2008)

The court found that the bonus payment scheme constituted a pactum de quota litis, which is unlawful and void unless it complies with the Contingency Fees Act. The agreement between the applicant and first respondent was neither in writing nor signed by the client, and thus did not meet statutory requirements. Payments made under such an unlawful agreement are recoverable by the applicant. The respondent's shifting explanations for the bonus payment were inconsistent and unsupported by proper accounting. The court rejected the respondent's defences of lack of authority, prescription, and unliquidated claim. Set-off of fees against the bonus was not permissible on the papers, and the...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Tecmed (Pty) Limited; Respondent: John G Hunter; Respondent: Dhiren Mehta
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2008
Case Number
26122/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Van Rooyen
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees Act, Pactum De Quota Litis, Attorney Client Fees, Unjust Enrichment, Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contingency Fees Act Pactum De Quota Litis Attorney Client Fees Unjust Enrichment Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tecmed (Pty) Limited

Applicant

John G Hunter

Respondent

Dhiren Mehta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bonus payment scheme between the applicant and first respondent constituted an unlawful pactum de quota litis.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is obliged to refund the applicant the sum of R350 000 paid under the bonus scheme.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent must draw and tax bills of costs for all matters handled for the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the bonus payment scheme constituted a pactum de quota litis, which is unlawful and void unless it complies with the Contingency Fees Act. The agreement between the applicant and first respondent was neither in writing nor signed by the client, and thus did not meet statutory requirements. Payments made under such an unlawful agreement are recoverable by the applicant. The respondent's shifting explanations for the bonus payment were inconsistent and unsupported by proper accounting. The court rejected the respondent's defences of lack of authority, prescription, and unliquidated claim. Set-off of fees against the bonus was not permissible on the papers, and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent must draw and tax bills of costs in respect of all matters handled for and on behalf of the applicant.
  • The first respondent must pay the applicant the sum of R350 000.00 with interest at 15.5% per annum a tempore morae until date of payment.