Van Tonder v Presiding Magistrate, Somerset West and Others (13282/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 26 (5 March 2019)

Van Tonder v Presiding Magistrate, Somerset West and Others (13282/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 26 (5 March 2019)

The court found that while the applicant achieved some success in securing protection from psychological harm and facilitating interrogation at a neutral venue, his conduct in evading service and persisting in a claim for personal costs against professionals acting in representative capacities was unwarranted. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Christiaan Ernst van Tonder; Respondent: The Presiding Magistrate, Somerset West; Respondent: Jurgens Steenkamp N.O.; Respondent: Johan Theron
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2019
Case Number
13282/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Agreed Order
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
P.A.L.Gamble
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Urgent Interdict, Insolvency Interrogation
Civil Procedure Costs Award Urgent Interdict Insolvency Interrogation

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Ernst van Tonder

Applicant

The Presiding Magistrate, Somerset West

Respondent

Jurgens Steenkamp N.O.

Respondent

Johan Theron

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Agreed Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant or respondents should bear the reserved costs of the urgent application and subsequent proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether a personal costs order (de bonis propriis) should be made against the trustee and attorney.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct justified an adverse costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant achieved some success in securing protection from psychological harm and facilitating interrogation at a neutral venue, his conduct in evading service and persisting in a claim for personal costs against professionals acting in representative capacities was unwarranted. The respondents' opposition was reasonable, and there was no material departure from professional responsibility to justify a de bonis propriis order. In balancing the measure of success and the conduct of the parties, the fairest and most equitable outcome was that no party should be burdened with costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • There will be no order as to costs.