Van Zyl v Steyn (83856/15) [2022] ZAGPPHC 302 (3 May 2022)

Van Zyl v Steyn (83856/15) [2022] ZAGPPHC 302 (3 May 2022)

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the costs order. The exercise of judicial discretion in awarding costs was not materially misdirected, and the applicant did not show that the respondent was not substantially successful. The factual findings underlying the costs order were not challenged in a manner that would justify interference. The matter did not involve exceptional circumstances or substantial costs that would warrant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and the draft order agreed by the parties was made an order of court under Rule 42(1)(b).

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 302
Parties
Applicant: Van Zyl, Jacobus Petrus; Respondent: Steyn, Marianne Desiree
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2022
Case Number
83856/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
DP de Villiers
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Judicial Discretion, Division of Joint Property
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Costs Award Judicial Discretion Division of Joint Property

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Zyl, Jacobus Petrus

Applicant

Steyn, Marianne Desiree

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of judicial discretion in awarding costs was materially misdirected or unfair.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting leave to appeal on costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the costs order. The exercise of judicial discretion in awarding costs was not materially misdirected, and the applicant did not show that the respondent was not substantially successful. The factual findings underlying the costs order were not challenged in a manner that would justify interference. The matter did not involve exceptional circumstances or substantial costs that would warrant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and the draft order agreed by the parties was made an order of court under Rule 42(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The draft order annexed and marked 'A', dated and initialled by the judge, is made an order of court.