Van Reenen v Lewis and Another (2302/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 55 (14 May 2019)

Van Reenen v Lewis and Another (2302/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 55 (14 May 2019)

The court found that the second defendant's conduct in defending the matter was vexatious in effect, as it failed to candidly engage with the facts, avoided answering pertinent questions, and rejected reasonable settlement offers. The second defendant's shifting defence and refusal to settle unnecessarily protracted the litigation and escalated costs for both the plaintiff and the first defendant. The court held that this justified a departure from the general rule on costs, awarding the plaintiff attorney and client costs from the date of the first Calderbank offer (17 August 2018). The first defendant, although forced to remain in the trial due to the second defendant's conduct, was...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Ilse Erna Van Reenen; First Defendant: Dr Pierre Gerhardus Lewis; Second Defendant: Life Rosepark Hospital
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2019
Case Number
2302/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Costs Determination After Withdrawal and Concession of Liability
Outcome
The second defendant is declared liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from cauda equina syndrome sustained on 29 June 2011. The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on a party and party scale up to 16 August 2018, and on an attorney and client scale from 17 August...
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Attorney and Client Scale, Vexatious Litigation, Hospital Liability, Calderbank Offer

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilse Erna Van Reenen

Plaintiff

Dr Pierre Gerhardus Lewis

First Defendant

Life Rosepark Hospital

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Costs Determination After Withdrawal and Concession of Liability

  1. 1 What is the appropriate scale of costs between the plaintiff and the second defendant: party and party or attorney and client (or attorney and own client)?
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the first defendant and on what scale?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant's conduct in defending the matter was vexatious in effect, as it failed to candidly engage with the facts, avoided answering pertinent questions, and rejected reasonable settlement offers. The second defendant's shifting defence and refusal to settle unnecessarily protracted the litigation and escalated costs for both the plaintiff and the first defendant. The court held that this justified a departure from the general rule on costs, awarding the plaintiff attorney and client costs from the date of the first Calderbank offer (17 August 2018). The first defendant, although forced to remain in the trial due to the second defendant's conduct, was...

Court Disposition

The second defendant is declared liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from cauda equina syndrome sustained on 29 June 2011. The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on a party and party scale up to 16 August 2018, and on an attorney and client scale from 17 August...

Orders

  • It is declared that the second defendant is liable for 100% of the proven or agreed damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of cauda equina syndrome sustained on 29 June 2011 and its sequelae.
  • The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's party and party costs of the action on the High Court scale up to and including 16 August 2018, and from 17 August 2018, the plaintiff's reasonable attorney and client costs on the High Court scale, including costs for senior counsel, expert witnesses,...