Professional Documents
Culture Documents
316 Distinguished From Attorney and Own Client Costs Our Courts Recognise A Distinction Between at
316 Distinguished From Attorney and Own Client Costs Our Courts Recognise A Distinction Between at
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.