Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 316 Distinguished From Attorney and Own Client Costs Our Courts Recognise A Distinction Between at

    Uploaded by

    Barbra
    62 views1 page
    This document discusses the distinction between attorney and client costs versus attorney and own client costs in South African law. Attorney and client costs refer to the amount a taxing master allows an attorney to recover from a client, while attorney and own client costs refer to any agreed additional fees. The court must give effect to any agreement on attorney and own client costs if the services were rendered, disbursements made, and the client not overreached. The court may also order an unsuccessful litigant to pay the successful party's attorney and own client costs in exceptional circumstances to recompense the winner.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    316  Distinguished from attorney and own client costs  Our courts recognise a distinction between at

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses the distinction between attorney and client costs versus attorney and own client costs in South African law. Attorney and client costs refer to the amount a taxing master allows an attorney to recover from a client, while attorney and own client costs refer to any agreed additional fees. The court must give effect to any agreement on attorney and own client costs if the services were rendered, disbursements made, and the client not overreached. The court may also order an unsuccessful litigant to pay the successful party's attorney and own client costs in exceptional circumstances to recompense the winner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    62 views1 page

    316 Distinguished From Attorney and Own Client Costs Our Courts Recognise A Distinction Between at

    Uploaded by

    Barbra
    This document discusses the distinction between attorney and client costs versus attorney and own client costs in South African law. Attorney and client costs refer to the amount a taxing master allows an attorney to recover from a client, while attorney and own client costs refer to any agreed additional fees. The court must give effect to any agreement on attorney and own client costs if the services were rendered, disbursements made, and the client not overreached. The court may also order an unsuccessful litigant to pay the successful party's attorney and own client costs in exceptional circumstances to recompense the winner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    316  Distinguished from attorney and own client costs  Our courts recognise a distinction between attorney and

    client costs on the one hand, and attorney and own client costs on the other.1
    In the absence of an agreement, an attorney is only entitled to recover from his or her client the amount the
    taxing master allows on the attorney and client scale. By agreement, express or tacit, the attorney may be entitled
    to more than the taxable amount, and this agreed amount or scale of fees is what is referred to as attorney and
    own client costs.2 The court or the taxing officer is obliged to give effect to such an agreement provided:
    (a) the services claimed have been rendered;
    (b) the disbursements claimed have been made; and
    (c) the client is not overreached.3
    A court is also entitled to order an unsuccessful litigant to pay to the successful party its attorney and own client
    costs, bearing in mind that such an order is a punitive one.4 An order for costs on the scale of attorney and own
    client should in general be approached as follows:5
    (a) it is proper in exceptional circumstances only;
    (b) it should be kept in mind that the ostensible purpose of such an order is to recompense the successful
    litigant as far as can be done; and
    (c) what the attorney can recover from his or her client should be ascertained. This seems to be specifically
    authorised (expressly or impliedly) expenses, other expenses that the attorney considered necessary in managing
    the client's affairs, and fees expressly or impliedly agreed upon.6
    1 In AA Alloy Foundry (Pty)  Ltd v Titaco Projects (Pty)  Ltd 2000 1 SA 639 (SCA) 648H the Supreme
    Court of Appeal questioned the justifiability of an attorney and own client award when someone other
    that own client is involved; see Erasmus Superior Court Practice B1­428A. See also in general Aircraft
    Completions Centre (Pty) Ltd v Rossouw 2003 3 All SA 617 (W); 2004 1 SA 123 (W); par 315 fns 1­3
    ante; Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 4 SA 790 (A) 807C; Cambridge
    Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty)  Ltd 1990 2 SA 574 (T). See further Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of
    1944s 80(4): "special agreement"; Murray v Yoyo 1912 CPD 807; Nicholls v Macmuldraw 1923 CPD
    401; Incorporated Law Society v Lakofski 1939 TPD 289; Allison v Massel & Massel 1954 4 SA 569 (T);
    Bank of Lisbon International Ltd v Venter 1990 4 SA 463 (A); Beinash v Wixley 1997 2 All SA 241 (A);
    1997 3 SA 721 (A) 726 740; Sanddune CC v Catt 1998 2 SA 461 (SE) 467.
    2 Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd supra; Friederich Kling GmbH v Continental Jewellery
    Manufacturers, Speidel GmbH v Continental Jewellery Manufacturers 1 9 9 5   4   S A   9 6 6  ( C )   9 7 6 ;
    T h o r o u g h b r e d   B r e e d e r s '   A s s o c i a t i o n   o f   S A   v   P r i c e   W a t e r h o u s e  2 0 0 1   4   A l l   S A   1 6 1   ( S C A );
    2001 4 SA 551 (SCA) 596; Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Windvogel 1996 1 SA 1171  ( C )
    1180H­J.
    3 Muller v The Master 1992 4 SA 277 (T) 285. See also Law Society of SWA v Steyn 1932 SWA 47 52;
    Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Hill SA 1984 4 SA 574 (W); South African Permanent Building Society v
    Powell 1986 1 SA 722 (A); Incorporated Law Society v Reid (1908) 25 SC 612; Goolam Mahomed v
    Janion (1908) 29 NLR 304; Gramowsky v Steyn 1922 SWA 48. See further Van Niekerk 1978 BML 9;
    Aircraft Completions Centre (Pty) Ltd v Rossouw supra par 138; Ben McDonald Ingelyf v Rudolph 1996
    3 All SA 591 (T); 1997 4 SA 252 (T) 258A­C.
    4 Sentrachem Ltd v Prinsloo 1997 2 SA 1 (A) 21­22; Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments
    (Pty)  Ltd supra 807C­D (attorney and own client scale not warranted); Sentrachem Ltd v Prinsloo
    supra 24I­J (costs on attorney and own client scale justified); Badenhorst v Balju, Pretoria Sentraal
    1998 4 SA 132 (T) 142B­E; Ernst & Young v Beinash 1999 1 SA 1114 (W) 1118D­G; Laerskool
    Middelburg v Departementshoof, Mpumalanga Departement van Onderwys 2002 4 All SA 745 (T);
    2003 4 SA 160 (T) 178H­I.
    5 Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty)  Ltd supra; see Aircraft Completions Centre (Pty)  Ltd v
    Rossouw supra for a fuller discussion of the issue.
    6 See also Magwill Carriers (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission 1982 1 SA 166 (T) 168­169 where
    the principles regarding what may be debited by an attorney to his or her client are set out. But see,
    on the other hand, Michael v Caroline's Frozen Yoghurt Parlour (Pty) Ltd 1999 1 SA 624 (W) 636C­D.

    You might also like