Yung Shen Plastics v Yu Ta Bags CC and Another (2247/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 210 (15 December 2011)

Yung Shen Plastics v Yu Ta Bags CC and Another (2247/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 210 (15 December 2011)

The court held that the applicant is entitled to costs of the application, as these costs are separate from those awarded in the action. The second respondent failed to provide any convincing reason for its delay in filing an opposing affidavit or in seeking rescission of the default judgment. The court found that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 210
Parties
Applicant: Yung Shen Plastics; Respondent: Yu Ta Bags CC; Respondent: Topaz Distribution Services
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Case Number
2247/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Costs Following Default Judgment and Settlement Negotiations
Outcome
Application granted. Second respondent ordered to pay costs of the application.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Copyright Enforcement, Interdict, Costs Award, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Copyright Enforcement Interdict Costs Award Default Judgment

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yung Shen Plastics

Applicant

Yu Ta Bags CC

Respondent

Topaz Distribution Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Costs Following Default Judgment and Settlement Negotiations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of the application after obtaining default judgment in the action.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's application for postponement should be granted to ventilate the issue of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant is entitled to costs of the application, as these costs are separate from those awarded in the action. The second respondent failed to provide any convincing reason for its delay in filing an opposing affidavit or in seeking rescission of the default judgment. The court found that no purpose would be served by granting a postponement solely to argue the issue of costs. Accordingly, the second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Second respondent ordered to pay costs of the application.

Orders

  • The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.