Loedolff v Padongelukkefonds (280/2011)
Loedolff v Padongelukkefonds (280/2011) [2015] ZAFSHC 80 (23 April 2015)
The court held that the taxing master was correct in his approach to the taxation of costs where an attorney performed advocate-type work. The master properly considered the actual work done, the hours billed, and the avoidance of duplication, applying the hourly tariff for attorneys rather than the daily fee for advocates. The applicant's reliance on Maluti Plant Hire CC v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality was misplaced, as the principle that attorneys are entitled to advocate-level fees only where there is no duplication is well established. The distinction between advocate and attorney fe…
Source excerpt
- Taxation Of Costs
- Attorney Advocate Fee Distinction
- Duplication Of Costs
- Rule 69 And Rule 70 Interpretation