Univision Services Association NPC and Others v National Consumer Tribunal and Another (97574/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1110 (3 November 2016)

Univision Services Association NPC and Others v National Consumer Tribunal and Another (97574/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1110 (3 November 2016)

The court held that the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked the power to award costs in circumstances where an application is withdrawn without a cost tender. While section 147(1) of the National Credit Act establishes the general rule that each party bears its own costs, the applicable regulations provide for exceptions, including the possibility of awarding costs upon withdrawal of an application, either by consent or on application. The Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate applications for costs in such circumstances and is not barred from considering punitive costs where the conduct is vexatious or frivolous. The Tribunal's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs was...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1110
Parties
Applicant: Univision Services Association NPC; Applicant: Vacation Recreational Services; Applicant: Quality Time Marketing (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Quality Vacation Club; Applicant: African Club Innovations; Applicant: Multi Destination Club; Applicant: Lifestyle Vacation Club; Applicant: African Vacation Club; Applicant: VIP Express; Applicant: Milcar Development CC; Applicant: Investage 192 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Consumer Tribunal; Respondent: National Consumer Commission
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2016
Case Number
97574/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judicial Review of Administrative Decision
Outcome
Application for review granted; Tribunal's decision refusing to award costs set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration; second respondent ordered to pay costs of review.
Judges
SA Thobane
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Costs Award, Withdrawal of Application, Consumer Protection Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Costs Award Withdrawal of Application Consumer Protection Act

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Univision Services Association NPC

Applicant

Vacation Recreational Services

Applicant

Quality Time Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Quality Vacation Club

Applicant

African Club Innovations

Applicant

Multi Destination Club

Applicant

Lifestyle Vacation Club

Applicant

African Vacation Club

Applicant

VIP Express

Applicant

Milcar Development CC

Applicant

Investage 192 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

National Consumer Tribunal

Respondent

National Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judicial Review of Administrative Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Consumer Tribunal is empowered to award costs in circumstances where an application is withdrawn without a tender for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision refusing to award costs was correct in law.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked the power to award costs in circumstances where an application is withdrawn without a cost tender. While section 147(1) of the National Credit Act establishes the general rule that each party bears its own costs, the applicable regulations provide for exceptions, including the possibility of awarding costs upon withdrawal of an application, either by consent or on application. The Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate applications for costs in such circumstances and is not barred from considering punitive costs where the conduct is vexatious or frivolous. The Tribunal's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs was...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; Tribunal's decision refusing to award costs set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration; second respondent ordered to pay costs of review.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent made on 16 November 2015 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The application for the award of costs is remitted back to the first respondent to make a decision in respect of the applicants' application for costs against the second respondent.