W v W (80907/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 262 (27 March 2017)

W v W (80907/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 262 (27 March 2017)

The Court found that the Taxing Master erred in applying the limitations of Rule 43(7) and (8) to the costs of the Rule 43 application, as the Court order explicitly dispensed with those limitations for both attorney and client and party and party costs. Furthermore, the Taxing Master incorrectly included items relating to the amendment of particulars of claim as part of the Rule 43 application, which should not have been taxed as such. The Taxing Master also lacked discretion to disallow reasonable disbursements in an attorney and client bill. Consequently, the determination by the Taxing Master was set aside and the matter referred back for redetermination in accordance with these...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 262
Parties
Plaintiff: M. W.; Defendant: D. W.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2017
Case Number
80907/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48(1)
Outcome
Review granted; Taxing Master's determination set aside and matter referred back for redetermination.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Rule 43 Limitations, Attorney and Client Costs, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Rule 43 Limitations Attorney and Client Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. W.

Plaintiff

D. W.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Taxing Master's Ruling Under Rule 48(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in applying the limitations of Rule 43(7) and (8) to the costs of the Rule 43 application.
  2. 2 Whether the Court order dispensed with the prescribed limitations under Rule 43(7) and (8).
  3. 3 Whether items relating to amended particulars of claim were incorrectly taxed as part of the Rule 43 application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Taxing Master erred in applying the limitations of Rule 43(7) and (8) to the costs of the Rule 43 application, as the Court order explicitly dispensed with those limitations for both attorney and client and party and party costs. Furthermore, the Taxing Master incorrectly included items relating to the amendment of particulars of claim as part of the Rule 43 application, which should not have been taxed as such. The Taxing Master also lacked discretion to disallow reasonable disbursements in an attorney and client bill. Consequently, the determination by the Taxing Master was set aside and the matter referred back for redetermination in accordance with these...

Court Disposition

Review granted; Taxing Master's determination set aside and matter referred back for redetermination.

Orders

  • The determination by the Taxing Master is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Taxing Master for redetermination, taking into consideration that the limitations set out in Rule 43(7) and (8) should not be applied to items relating to the Rule 43 application.