VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Van Deventer (6115/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 57 (23 January 2020)

VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Van Deventer (6115/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 57 (23 January 2020)

The applicant failed to object to individual items during the taxation process as required by Rule 48. Only a general objection was raised after the taxation was completed, which does not satisfy the procedural requirements for review. The attorney and own client costs order does not entitle the applicant to unreasonable or exorbitant costs, but merely allows for a more generous application of the tariff within the bounds of reasonableness. The Taxing Master considered relevant factors in determining reasonableness and applied Rule 70 tariffs appropriately. There is no basis for the court to interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion, as no wrongful principle or manner was established....

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 57
Parties
Applicant: VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hermanus Christiaan Johannes Van Deventer
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Case Number
6115/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; taxation confirmed.
Judges
P.J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Attorney and Own Client Costs, Rule 48 Procedure, Rule 70 Tariff, Blanket Objection, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Attorney and Own Client Costs Rule 48 Procedure Rule 70 Tariff Blanket Objection Taxing Master Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hermanus Christiaan Johannes Van Deventer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with Rule 48 requirements for objecting to items during taxation.
  2. 2 Whether the attorney and own client costs order entitled the applicant to a higher tariff than Rule 70.
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion correctly in taxing the bill of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to object to individual items during the taxation process as required by Rule 48. Only a general objection was raised after the taxation was completed, which does not satisfy the procedural requirements for review. The attorney and own client costs order does not entitle the applicant to unreasonable or exorbitant costs, but merely allows for a more generous application of the tariff within the bounds of reasonableness. The Taxing Master considered relevant factors in determining reasonableness and applied Rule 70 tariffs appropriately. There is no basis for the court to interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion, as no wrongful principle or manner was established....

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; taxation confirmed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The taxation is confirmed.