Liebel v Road Accident Fund and Others (40882/2020)
Liebel v Road Accident Fund and Others (40882/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 411 (17 May 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a direct contractual relationship with the first respondent entitling her to claim fees for services rendered. The prevailing legal position is that the obligation to pay counsel's fees arises from the agreement between counsel and the instructing attorney, not between counsel and the client. The attorney acts as the agent for the client, but the contract for counsel's fees is between attorney and counsel. Previous payments by the first respondent do not create a direct contractual nexus. The court followed the reasoning in Leysath and Fl…
Source excerpt
- Attorney Counsel Fee Liability
- Mandate Contracts
- Professional Practice Trade Usage