Tradax Ocean Transportation SA v mv 'SILVERGATE' Properly Described as mv 'ASTYANAX' and Others (2) (107/97) [1999] ZASCA 31; [1999] 3 All SA 175 (A) (24 May 1999)

Tradax Ocean Transportation SA v mv 'SILVERGATE' Properly Described as mv 'ASTYANAX' and Others (2) (107/97) [1999] ZASCA 31; [1999] 3 All SA 175 (A) (24 May 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the failure by the court a quo to award the qualifying fees and expenses of the third respondent's expert witnesses was an oversight. The third respondent was clearly entitled to such an order, and the appellant did not oppose the cross-appeal. Accordingly, the order of the court a quo was varied to include the qualifying fees and expenses of the expert witnesses Tasiopoulos, Verhoeven, and Nakazawa.

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 31
Parties
Appellant: Tradax Ocean Transportation SA; Respondent: mv 'SILVERGATE' properly described as mv 'ASTYANAX'; Respondent: Astyanax Compañia Naviera SA; Respondent: Gardenia Maritime Inc
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 1999
Case Number
107/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Cross Appeal
Outcome
Cross-appeal allowed with costs; order of court a quo varied to include qualifying fees and expenses of expert witnesses.
Judges
Nienaber, Marais, Plewman, Streicher, Farlam
Legal Topics
Expert Witness Fees, Costs Award, Variation of Order
Admiralty and Maritime Expert Witness Fees Costs Award Variation of Order

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tradax Ocean Transportation SA

Appellant

mv 'SILVERGATE' properly described as mv 'ASTYANAX'

Respondent

Astyanax Compañia Naviera SA

Respondent

Gardenia Maritime Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent is entitled to the qualifying fees and expenses of its expert witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether the omission by the court a quo to award such fees was an oversight.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the failure by the court a quo to award the qualifying fees and expenses of the third respondent's expert witnesses was an oversight. The third respondent was clearly entitled to such an order, and the appellant did not oppose the cross-appeal. Accordingly, the order of the court a quo was varied to include the qualifying fees and expenses of the expert witnesses Tasiopoulos, Verhoeven, and Nakazawa.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeal allowed with costs; order of court a quo varied to include qualifying fees and expenses of expert witnesses.

Orders

  • The cross-appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The order made by the court a quo is varied by the addition after the words 'two counsel' of the following: 'and the qualifying fees and expenses of the expert witnesses Tasiopoulos, Verhoeven and Nakazawa'.