Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. and Others v Motara and Others; In re: Motara v Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. and Others (995/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 293 (21 October 2016)

Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. and Others v Motara and Others; In re: Motara v Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. and Others (995/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 293 (21 October 2016)

The court found that the applicants' prospects of success in rescinding the judgments were foreclosed by binding authority, specifically the De la Guerre judgment, which held that common law contingency fee agreements are invalid. The applicants were parties to that case and have been aware of its outcome since 2013. Allowing the matter to proceed would waste judicial resources. However, both parties sought postponement to regularise outstanding issues and file necessary affidavits and annexures. The court granted the postponement but ordered that costs occasioned by the postponement be borne by the applicants, as they refused to consent initially and only sought postponement to obtain...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 293
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc; Applicant: Bobroff, Ronald; Applicant: Bobroff, Darren Rodney; Respondent: Motara, Yasmin; Respondent: Van Staden, Johann, NO; Respondent: Zimerman, Rael; Respondent: Bezuidenhout, Steven
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Case Number
995/2015
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Post Settlement, Application for Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Applications for rescission of judgment postponed sine die; applicants to pay costs of postponement.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Contingency Fee Agreements, Common Law Invalidity, Postponement of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Contingency Fee Agreements Common Law Invalidity Postponement of Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc

Applicant

Bobroff, Ronald

Applicant

Bobroff, Darren Rodney

Applicant

Motara, Yasmin

Respondent

Van Staden, Johann, NO

Respondent

Zimerman, Rael

Respondent

Bezuidenhout, Steven

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Post Settlement, Application for Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to rescission of judgments granted by consent in terms of settlement agreements.
  2. 2 Whether the common law contingency fee agreements are invalid and void.
  3. 3 Whether postponement should be granted to allow respondents to file answering affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' prospects of success in rescinding the judgments were foreclosed by binding authority, specifically the De la Guerre judgment, which held that common law contingency fee agreements are invalid. The applicants were parties to that case and have been aware of its outcome since 2013. Allowing the matter to proceed would waste judicial resources. However, both parties sought postponement to regularise outstanding issues and file necessary affidavits and annexures. The court granted the postponement but ordered that costs occasioned by the postponement be borne by the applicants, as they refused to consent initially and only sought postponement to obtain...

Court Disposition

Applications for rescission of judgment postponed sine die; applicants to pay costs of postponement.

Orders

  • The applicants’ applications for rescission of judgment are all postponed sine die.
  • The applicants are to file annexure X, referenced in their founding affidavit, by no later than 28 October 2016.