Van Der Merwe v Jensen and Others (71030/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 92 (7 February 2014)

Van Der Merwe v Jensen and Others (71030/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 92 (7 February 2014)

The court found that clause 3 of the settlement agreement did not constitute an agreement on costs in favour of the respondents. The clause merely provided for the R450,000 balance to be held over for possible offset against costs, should a favourable costs order be made. Since the parties did not reach agreement on costs, the applicant was entitled to approach the court for a determination. The respondents' opposition to the application was ill-conceived, and their conduct necessitated the proceedings. The applicant was justified in seeking a costs order, and the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the main application, the counter-application, and the present proceedings on a...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Van Der Merwe I N; Respondent: Jensen M & Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2014
Case Number
71030/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Main and Counter Applications
Outcome
Application for costs order granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Costs Order, Interpretation of Contract, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Settlement Agreement Costs Order Interpretation of Contract Party and Party 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Der Merwe I N

Applicant

Jensen M & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Main and Counter Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 3 of the settlement agreement constitutes an agreement on costs in favour of the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to set the matter down for a costs order without first seeking to make the settlement agreement an order of court.
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of the main application, counter-application, and the present proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that clause 3 of the settlement agreement did not constitute an agreement on costs in favour of the respondents. The clause merely provided for the R450,000 balance to be held over for possible offset against costs, should a favourable costs order be made. Since the parties did not reach agreement on costs, the applicant was entitled to approach the court for a determination. The respondents' opposition to the application was ill-conceived, and their conduct necessitated the proceedings. The applicant was justified in seeking a costs order, and the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the main application, the counter-application, and the present proceedings on a...

Court Disposition

Application for costs order granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are to pay the costs in the main application under case No. 71030/2009 on a party-and-party scale.
  • The first and second respondents are to pay the costs of the counter-application on a party-and-party scale.