South Africa Case Law

Solomon and Another v Junkeeparsad (37003/2019; 37456/2019)

Solomon and Another v Junkeeparsad (37003/2019; 37456/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 163; 2022 (3) SA 526 (GJ) (2 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37003/2019; 37456/2019

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The court held that, following the Legal Practice Act and the Code of Conduct, an attorney who instructs an advocate is personally liable for the advocate's reasonable fees, regardless of whether the attorney acts through an incorporated firm. The Code of Conduct now codifies this liability as a rule of law, not merely a professional practice or trade usage. The respondent, having instructed the applicants in his professional capacity, is liable to pay their reasonable charges, and the applicants are entitled to sue him personally without needing to sue the incorporated firm. The allegations…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioners Liability
• Advocate Fees
• Legal Practice Act
• Code Of Conduct
• Privity Of Contract

Electronic Patient Records (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health, Northern Cape (1115/2010)

Electronic Patient Records (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health, Northern Cape (1115/2010) [2015] ZANCHC 24 (28 August 2015)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1115/2010

Judge

Erasmus, AJ

High Court review of a taxation of costs: the court upheld the taxing master’s disallowance of travel and preparation fees and dismissed the application.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Party And Party Costs
• Discretion Of Taxing Master
• Condonation
• Advocate Fees
• Taxation-of-costs

Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006)

Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 149 (11 December 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1973/2006

Judge

M B Molemela

The court found that the taxing master correctly applied established principles and guidelines in disallowing separate fees for preparation and drawing of heads of argument. These items constitute duplication and should be included as part of counsel's preparation for hearing. The guidelines used by the taxing master are correct and supported by relevant authorities. There was no evidence that the taxing master exercised her discretion improperly or on a wrong principle. Accordingly, the review application could not succeed.

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Advocate Fees
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Review Of Taxing Master
• Duplication Of Fees