Van der Walt v Murray and Another (2554/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 169 (10 September 2019)

Van der Walt v Murray and Another (2554/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 169 (10 September 2019)

The court found that the conduct of the applicant’s attorney, Mr Senekal, was negligent, unreasonable, and lacking in diligence. He failed to comply with court orders, rules, and practice directives, did not file required affidavits or heads of argument, and ignored repeated warnings regarding costs. His correspondence was discourteous and dismissive of both the respondents and the court’s procedures. The litigation was unnecessarily protracted, causing wasted costs to the insolvent estate and its creditors. The court held that the respondents and the estate should not bear the burden of these unnecessary costs. In light of section 74 of the Insolvency Act and established principles...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 169
Parties
Applicant: Sarel Jacobus van der Walt; Respondent: Cloete Murray; Respondent: Ruwayne Smith
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Case Number
2554/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Ruling Following Withdrawal of Main and Postponement Applications
Outcome
Costs order de bonis propriis granted against the applicant’s attorney, Mr FJ Senekal, to pay the respondents’ costs on the attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Costs De Bonis Propriis, Attorney and Own Client Costs, Withdrawal of Application, Practice Directives, Professional Conduct of Attorneys
Civil Procedure Costs De Bonis Propriis Attorney and Own Client Costs Withdrawal of Application Practice Directives Professional Conduct of Attorneys

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarel Jacobus van der Walt

Applicant

Cloete Murray

Respondent

Ruwayne Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Ruling Following Withdrawal of Main and Postponement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the matter on a party and party scale or whether the applicant’s attorney should be ordered to pay such costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conduct of the applicant’s attorney, Mr Senekal, was negligent, unreasonable, and lacking in diligence. He failed to comply with court orders, rules, and practice directives, did not file required affidavits or heads of argument, and ignored repeated warnings regarding costs. His correspondence was discourteous and dismissive of both the respondents and the court’s procedures. The litigation was unnecessarily protracted, causing wasted costs to the insolvent estate and its creditors. The court held that the respondents and the estate should not bear the burden of these unnecessary costs. In light of section 74 of the Insolvency Act and established principles...

Court Disposition

Costs order de bonis propriis granted against the applicant’s attorney, Mr FJ Senekal, to pay the respondents’ costs on the attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The applicant’s attorney, Mr FJ Senekal, is ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of this matter, including all reserved costs, on the scale as between attorney and own client.