Van Zyl and Another v Meat Matrix Software (Pty) Ltd and Another (35355/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 136; 2014 BIP 461 (GJ) (10 June 2014)

Van Zyl and Another v Meat Matrix Software (Pty) Ltd and Another (35355/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 136; 2014 BIP 461 (GJ) (10 June 2014)

The applicants withdrew their application at a late stage after the matter had already been set down for hearing, causing the respondents unnecessary expense. Although the applicants acted on legal advice, the delay in withdrawal was inexcusable. The court found that the circumstances justified a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. No counter-application was properly before the court, so no interdict could be granted against the applicants.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 136
Parties
Applicant: Gert Hendrik Van Zyl; Applicant: Abaserve CC; Respondent: Meat Matrix Software (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Deon Snyman
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Case Number
35355/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Withdrawal of Application; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Swartz
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Copyright Infringement Withdrawal of Application Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gert Hendrik Van Zyl

Applicant

Abaserve CC

Applicant

Meat Matrix Software (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Deon Snyman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Withdrawal of Application; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs on the attorney and client scale following withdrawal of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to a counter-interdict against the applicants for alleged threats and dissemination of untruths.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants withdrew their application at a late stage after the matter had already been set down for hearing, causing the respondents unnecessary expense. Although the applicants acted on legal advice, the delay in withdrawal was inexcusable. The court found that the circumstances justified a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. No counter-application was properly before the court, so no interdict could be granted against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application, such costs to be taxed on the attorney and own client scale and to include the costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.