Hi-Line Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lamprecht and Others (364/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 13 (13 March 2014)

Hi-Line Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lamprecht and Others (364/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 13 (13 March 2014)

The court found that the postponement was solely necessitated by the third defendant's need to amend his plea and file a counterclaim, following admissions made at the pre-trial conference. The plaintiff was not blameworthy, as the sustainability of the defendant's defences only came into question after the pre-trial admissions. The defendant provided an explanation for his conduct, and there was no evidence of negligence or disregard for the plaintiff's rights comparable to the cases justifying attorney and client costs. Therefore, the usual rule applies: the party at fault pays the wasted costs, but on the party and party scale, not the attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 13
Parties
Plaintiff: Hi-Line Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Abraham Jacob Lamprecht; Defendant: Marinda Lamprecht; Defendant: Hein Swanepoel
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Case Number
364/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Postponement and Costs Order Prior to Trial
Outcome
The third defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement on the party and party scale.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Postponement, Attorney and Client Scale, Party and Party Scale, Rectification of Agreement
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Postponement Attorney and Client Scale Party and Party Scale Rectification of Agreement

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

Parties

Hi-Line Investments (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Abraham Jacob Lamprecht

Defendant

Marinda Lamprecht

Defendant

Hein Swanepoel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Postponement and Costs Order Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.
  2. 2 Whether the costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale or the party and party scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the postponement was solely necessitated by the third defendant's need to amend his plea and file a counterclaim, following admissions made at the pre-trial conference. The plaintiff was not blameworthy, as the sustainability of the defendant's defences only came into question after the pre-trial admissions. The defendant provided an explanation for his conduct, and there was no evidence of negligence or disregard for the plaintiff's rights comparable to the cases justifying attorney and client costs. Therefore, the usual rule applies: the party at fault pays the wasted costs, but on the party and party scale, not the attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

The third defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement on the party and party scale.

Orders

  • The third defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement on the party and party scale.