Van Biljon v Rautenbach (877/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 181 (3 September 2014)

Van Biljon v Rautenbach (877/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 181 (3 September 2014)

The taxing master acted outside his mandate by refusing to proceed with taxation based on an alleged settlement, which was not proven and was not within his authority to determine. The master misdirected himself by requiring the respondent to prove the absence of settlement rather than requiring the applicant to prove its existence. Rule 48 requires objections and rulings on an item-by-item basis, with an allocatur, which did not occur here. Nevertheless, the review court has wide powers to intervene in irregular taxation proceedings. The matter is remitted to the taxing master for proper taxation, and the applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the review and the wasted costs occasioned...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 181
Parties
Plaintiff: Siegrefried Van Biljon; Defendant: Susara Rautenbach
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2014
Case Number
877/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48
Outcome
The review is granted; the master's ruling is set aside and the matter is remitted for proper taxation.
Judges
I. Motloung
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Rule 48 Procedure, Allocatur Requirement
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Rule 48 Procedure Allocatur Requirement

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

Parties

Siegrefried Van Biljon

Plaintiff

Susara Rautenbach

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master acted within his mandate under Rule 48 when he declined to proceed with taxation based on an alleged settlement.
  2. 2 Whether the review court has jurisdiction to set aside the master's ruling despite procedural irregularities.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted for proper taxation.

Ratio Decidendi

The taxing master acted outside his mandate by refusing to proceed with taxation based on an alleged settlement, which was not proven and was not within his authority to determine. The master misdirected himself by requiring the respondent to prove the absence of settlement rather than requiring the applicant to prove its existence. Rule 48 requires objections and rulings on an item-by-item basis, with an allocatur, which did not occur here. Nevertheless, the review court has wide powers to intervene in irregular taxation proceedings. The matter is remitted to the taxing master for proper taxation, and the applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the review and the wasted costs occasioned...

Court Disposition

The review is granted; the master's ruling is set aside and the matter is remitted for proper taxation.

Orders

  • The taxation proceedings before the taxing master of 18 June 2014 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted back to the taxing master to proceed with the taxation of the bill of costs, and the ordinary rules pertaining to taxation shall apply.