Vlok v Engen Petroleum Ltd (3459/2009) [2012] ZAFSHC 52 (22 March 2012)

Vlok v Engen Petroleum Ltd (3459/2009) [2012] ZAFSHC 52 (22 March 2012)

The court held that the taxing master erred in failing to distinguish between costs attributable to the first and second respondents, as required by the court order. Where costs were clearly referable to the first respondent, they should be allowed in full; where costs were shared or indistinguishable, only half should be allowed. The court reviewed each item in the taxed bills and indicated the correct apportionment or reduction for each. The court also ordered that the costs of the review of taxation be paid by the applicant's attorneys to the first respondent, as these costs were minimal and fairness required such an order.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Jacques Vlok; Respondent: Engen Petroleum Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Case Number
3459/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Review of taxation partially upheld; costs apportioned as indicated for each item. Applicant's attorneys ordered to pay R500.00 to the first respondent for the costs of the review.
Judges
Kruger, R
Legal Topics
Costs Taxation, Review of Taxation, Allocation of Costs, Court Discretion, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation Review of Taxation Allocation of Costs Court Discretion Party and Party Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Vlok

Applicant

Engen Petroleum Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master's allocation of costs between the parties was correct.
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned when claims against multiple respondents are involved.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to full costs or only those attributable to the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the taxing master erred in failing to distinguish between costs attributable to the first and second respondents, as required by the court order. Where costs were clearly referable to the first respondent, they should be allowed in full; where costs were shared or indistinguishable, only half should be allowed. The court reviewed each item in the taxed bills and indicated the correct apportionment or reduction for each. The court also ordered that the costs of the review of taxation be paid by the applicant's attorneys to the first respondent, as these costs were minimal and fairness required such an order.

Court Disposition

Review of taxation partially upheld; costs apportioned as indicated for each item. Applicant's attorneys ordered to pay R500.00 to the first respondent for the costs of the review.

Orders

  • The amounts or proportional reductions for each item are as indicated above.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay R500.00 to the applicant as costs of the review of taxation.