Theron, Van Der Poel, Brink, Roos v Simonsig Landgoed en 'n Ander (125/92) [1994] ZASCA 81; 1994 (4) SA 204 (AD); [1994] 4 All SA 500 (AD) (27 May 1994)

Theron, Van Der Poel, Brink, Roos v Simonsig Landgoed en 'n Ander (125/92) [1994] ZASCA 81; 1994 (4) SA 204 (AD); [1994] 4 All SA 500 (AD) (27 May 1994)

The court held that qualifying fees for expert witnesses who are also parties may only be allowed if actual additional expenses were incurred in preparing their expert testimony. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the partners incurred such costs or forfeited professional fees due to their preparation. The preparation was not shown to be distinct from factual testimony, and the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the qualifying fees for the three partners were not allowed as costs.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 81
Parties
Appellant: Theron, Van Der Poel, Brink, Roos; Respondent: Simonsig Landgoed en 'n Ander
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 1994
Case Number
125/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Determination
Outcome
Qualifying fees for the appellant's witnesses who were also partners are disallowed.
Judges
Van Heerden, EM Grosskopf, Goldstone, Van den Heever, Harms
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Expert Witness Fees, Taxation of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Expert Witness Fees Taxation of Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theron, Van Der Poel, Brink, Roos

Appellant

Simonsig Landgoed en 'n Ander

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether qualifying fees for expert witnesses who are also parties may be allowed as costs.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated entitlement to a discretionary costs order for qualifying fees.
  3. 3 Whether preparation costs for expert testimony by partners in a firm can be distinguished from factual testimony.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that qualifying fees for expert witnesses who are also parties may only be allowed if actual additional expenses were incurred in preparing their expert testimony. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the partners incurred such costs or forfeited professional fees due to their preparation. The preparation was not shown to be distinct from factual testimony, and the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the qualifying fees for the three partners were not allowed as costs.

Court Disposition

Qualifying fees for the appellant's witnesses who were also partners are disallowed.

Orders

  • The qualifying fees of Messrs Van der Vyver, Bosman, and Labuschaigne are not allowed as costs.