Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited and Another (34321/10) [2020] ZAGPPHC 618 (11 November 2020)

Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited and Another (34321/10) [2020] ZAGPPHC 618 (11 November 2020)

The court held that it was functus officio regarding the finding that the plaintiff was substantially successful and could not reconsider that aspect of the costs order. The defendant's rule 34 tenders did not comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 34(5), as they failed to address costs and did not provide reasons for disclaiming liability for costs. The tenders were therefore nullities and could not be considered under rule 34(12). The application for reconsideration of the costs order was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 618
Parties
Plaintiff: Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited; Defendant: Transalloys (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Case Number
34321/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order Under Rule 34(12)
Outcome
Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed. Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs, including costs for two counsel.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Rule 34 Tender, Functus Officio, Non Compliance With Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Rule 34 Tender Functus Officio Non Compliance With Rules

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

Parties

Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited

Defendant

Transalloys (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order Under Rule 34(12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application for reconsideration of the costs order under rule 34(12) is competent.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's rule 34 tenders complied with the requirements of rule 34(5).
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs from the date of the tenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was functus officio regarding the finding that the plaintiff was substantially successful and could not reconsider that aspect of the costs order. The defendant's rule 34 tenders did not comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 34(5), as they failed to address costs and did not provide reasons for disclaiming liability for costs. The tenders were therefore nullities and could not be considered under rule 34(12). The application for reconsideration of the costs order was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed. Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs, including costs for two counsel.

Orders

  • The application in terms of rule 34(12) is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of this application, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.