Most detailed discussion of the rule to date.
Rule 67A only applies to party and party costs.
Allows the court to exercise control over the maximum rate at which counsel's costs can be recovered.
Rule applies prospectively - to matters instituted before 12 April 2024, but heard after that date.
Scale A is the appropriate scale to make an award unless the application of a higher scale is justified unless the case is unusually complex, important or valuable.
The fact that punitive costs are sought will not, absent other factors, justify a higher scale of costs.
Court granted costs on scale C - briefly considered the issue of unnecessary or prolix drafting.
Agrees that the rule applies prospectively, matter dealt with, but judgment only granted after new rule came into effect, rule not applicable.
Order that the matter was heard before the introduction of the rule, order specifically excluding the application of the rule.
Equality court
Court relying on Mashava - rule applying only to party and party and not attorney and client costs.
Court declining to determine whether the rule applies in the Equality court.
Court declining to grant punitive costs, granting costs on scale C - no reasons provided
Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the Knysna Municipal Council and Others (4247/2023; 4441/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 130 (10 May 2024)
Court invited the parties to make submissions on whether the amended rule 67A applies to any costs orders which the court intended to make in the application and the scale thereof.
The court ordered costs on scale A, but only from 12 April 2024.
Ghubhelabm (Pty) Ltd and Another v R.A.W Truck Trading CC and Another (B3217/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 416 (26 April 2024)
Agrees with Mashavha that the rule operates prospectively;
References the view set out in Mashavha that scales B and C should be reserved for "truly valuable, complex or important cases". Here the court does not endorse this view, however does not make any determination on that issue.
Scale A awarded - the court here looks at the complexity of the case and concludes that it was not a complex case.
Buhle Waste (Pty) Limited v MEC of Health Gauteng Province and Others (2023/102560) [2024] ZAGPJHC 493 (22 May 2024)
Finds that the rule is only applicable to work done post 12 April 2024;
Finds that the requirements in Rule 67A(3) have been satisfied and that none of the provisions of Rule 67A(2) were applicable.
Makes a further finding that the issues requiring determination were novel in nature;
Makes differing orders regarding the scales to be applied to junior and senior counsel involved in the matter;
Awarded costs as follows:
"For all legal services pertaining to this application rendered by Counsel after the 12th of April 2024, the costs of Senior Counsel shall be taxed on Scale C and that of Junior Counsel shall be taxed on Scale B of Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court."
Tekete and Others v Minister of Safety and Security - Quantum Judgment (8042/2007) [2024] ZAWCHC 144 (22 May 2024)
Concurs that the rule applies prospectively;
Agrees that the rule only applies to costs on a party and party scale;
Ordered that costs be taxed on scale B - this was by consent between counsel, on the basis of the "clearly identified features of this case that were unusually complex, important and valuable to all the Plaintiffs who have patiently waited for closure".
Agrees with the court in Mashavha;
As all work done in the matter preceded the new rule, no order made regarding scales of costs.
The court rejected counsels submissions regarding the complexity of the matter and ordered costs on scale A (referred to in the judgment as the default position - see para 17);
Affirms the views in Mashavha.
The court was of the view that as most of the work done in the matter pre-dated the amended rule coming into operation, and the only remaining work to be done in the matter was the preparation of heads of argument and oral argument that an award of costs on scale A was appropriate as this work is not if the type or complexity which would warrant an order on scale B or C.
Court finding that the matter was not sufficiently complex to warrant either scale B or C.
The court considered the value of the claim (R 2.9 million) and stated that it was large, but not out of the ordinary, however awarded costs on scale B.
Thompson v Information Officer: Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Another (8090/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 136 (21 May 2024)
Here the court ordered costs on scale C, to include the costs of two counsel, however provided no reasons why that scale was appropriate.
Comments