About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAFSHC 207
|
|
Patrinos v Cooper and Others (1666/2010) [2013] ZAFSHC 207 (14 November 2013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Case No. : 1666/2010
In the matter between:-
VASILIKI PATRINOS
...........................................................................
Applicant
and
CHAVONNES BADENHORST ST CLAIR COOPER
................
1st
Respondent
PANAGIOTIS PATRINOS
.........................................................
2nd
Respondent
DR PATRINOS INCORPORATED
............................................
3rd
Respondent
JUDGMENT BY: PHALATSI, AJ
HEARD ON: IN CHAMBERS
DELIVERED ON: 14 NOVEMBER 201
3
[1] This is an
application for review of taxation. It appears that the bill of costs
under review was taxed on 18 June 2012. When
the file was firstly
brought to my attention, there were piles of papers and different
bills which dealt with different stages
of the matter. It was after a
long struggle that I got the bill which forms the subject matter of
this review, resulting in a delay
in the finalisation of this
judgment.
[2] This bill is for the
main application and relates to fees and disbursements due and owing
to Messrs Christo Dippenaar Attorneys,
Bloemfontein, who are
attorneys for the first respondent, on the scale as between party and
party. The taxing master was Mr Masoka,
whilst Ms Jones appeared on
behalf of the first respondent and advocate Patrinos, who it would
seem is the applicant, appeared
personally, during the taxation.
[3] I will only deal with
items in respect of which there is a dispute between the applicant
and the taxing master and leave out
those that the taxing master
concede that they should be or should have been taxed off.
[4] The first objection
is that the first respondent has submitted the bills on piece meal
basis for taxation and this has unfairly
increased taxation fees. It
is always desirable that all bills should be taxed simultaneously, if
this is possible. However, in
respect of taxation fees, because of
the fact that the same percentage is allowed on different amounts, I
find that the end result
will always be the same and the party
against whom the bill is taxed, could not be disadvantaged thereby.
[5] Generally, an
attorney is not only entitled, but also obliged to peruse each and
every document in respect of the case that
he/she handles, even those
documents which are drafted by his/her own counsel. It cannot be said
that because counsel has perused
a document, the perusal of the same
document by an attorney is a duplication, as he/she is entitled, and
indeed obliged, to peruse
same. I therefore find all items objected
against on this ground, must stand. Items, 1,5,7,17,19,21,33,45,47
and 71.
[6] Where a litigant is
him/herself an attorney or advocate, this factor should always be
taken into account in determining the
time of consultation with
him/her. It will naturally take a lesser time to consult with him/her
than it would with a lay person.
Items 3 and 12 should therefore be
reduced to 15 minutes each and items 22 and 24 should be taxed off.
Item 15 should also be taxed
off as it should have been done
simultaneously with item 12, as the client is not a lay person.
[7] The objections in
respect of the following items cannot be upheld and I agree with the
decision of the taxing master viz: items
13,14,16,23,25 to 32, 49,
54, 70, 73 and 74.
[8]
Item 50
Counsel’s
account:
In light of the fact that there had been postponements,
most matters were considered more than once. I therefore find that in
all
items that are allowed, which relate tothe main application and
exclude travelling costs, counsel’s fees should be allowed
at
R1 000,00 per hour. I do not see any items relating to day fee
and preparation fees in counsel’s account. I therefore
do not
see how the taxing master can allow (an) item(s) which is (are) not
in the account. I consequently find that these items
should be taxed
off and counsel’s fees be calculated as I have indicated above.
[9]
Items 57, 58,
80 and 81
Taxation of bills should
not be relegated to horse trading. The party taxing the bill has the
file with him/her and it is therefore
easy to prove the number of
letters written and received, if there is an objection thereto. The
taxing master must therefore only
allow the letters that have been
proved. In respect of telephone calls made and received, it is
usually not possible to note them,
as some calls are made or received
whilst the attorney either does not have the file or is out of
office. In the light hereof,
I uphold the decision of the taxing
master.
[10]
VAT
It is trite that where a
litigant is a VAT vendor, such VAT is not allowable on taxation as
the vendor, will offset output tax as
against input VAT with the
Receiver of Revenue. It is clear that the first respondent was not
involved in these proceedings in
his personal capacity. The only
reasonable conclusion is that he was involved in the proceedings in
his professional capacity,
in an incorporated company which is a VAT
vendor. It is also clear from counsel’s invoice that he is also
a VAT vendor. I
therefore find VAT on both the first respondent’s
account and advocate’s invoices should not be allowed.
ORDER
[11] I therefore make the
following order:
11.1. The applicant’s
review application succeeds to the extent indicated in this judgment;
11.2 The taxing master is
directed to adjust the allocation accordingly:
11.3. No order as to
costs as the first respondent did not oppose the review application.
_________________
N. W. PHALATSI, AJ
/ebeket