Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:12:32Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:12:32Z
dc.date.created 2010-02-02 en
dc.identifier.citation [2010] ZACC 1
dc.identifier.citation 2010 (5) BCLR 451 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2010 (5) SA 124 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3600
dc.title Hennie De Beer Game Lodge CC v Waterbok Bosveld Plaas CC and Another en
dc.title.alternative CCT106/09 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT106/09 en
dc.contributor.judge The Court
dc.date.judgment 4 February 2010
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3600/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%2880%20Kb%29-14058.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis This Court, in a review of the taxation (by its Taxing Master) of the Respondent’s bills of costs in an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal, reiterated the six principles it had previously laid down guiding the review of a taxation in the Constitutional Court. The Court held that an additional principle is that where the fee charged is time-related the amount of time actually spent in preparing an appeal cannot be decisive in determining the reasonableness, between party and party, of a fee for that particular work. Such a method of calculation, namely so much per hour, placed a premium on slow and inefficient work and resulted in a fee being charged which could be totally out of proportion to the value of the services actually rendered. The Court set aside the Taxing Master’s allocatur for the relevant items in the bill of costs.
dc.concourt.casehistory Judgment reviewing the taxation of a bill of costs by the Taxing Master of the CC


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account