Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Coetzee J |
Judgment Date | 31 July 1978 |
Citation | 1978 (4) SA 961 (W) |
Hearing Date | 31 July 1978 |
Court | Witwatersrand Local Division |
Coetzee J:
This is a review of taxation in terms of Rule 48. Two matters are in dispute; firstly, certain fees for making copies of a draft affidavit and annexures, and, secondly, counsel's fees in respect of the hearing. The first item is of minor importance, but much argument has been addressed
Coetzee J
to me on the quantum of counsel's fees and particularly on the vexed question as to what extent it should be influenced by the ravages of inflation.
A The Taxing Master says that the taxation of counsel's fees generally causes many problems, and he specifically requests a "directive" as to how these and other related problems should be approached by him. I can, however, only deal with the particular case before me and I cannot pretend to lay down a set of rules which are of general application, but, in B dealing with the points raised, it will be necessary to discuss counsel's fees generally and some of the problems mentioned by the Taxing Master.
It is necessary to summarise briefly the facts of the case and the points which were argued. In March 1976 the applicant instituted proceedings by way of notice of motion for a declaratory order. The matter came before me C and I heard argument on 10 and 11 November 1976. I reserved judgment, which I delivered on 19 November 1976. It was recorded and transcribed. The issues in the case appear from the first three pages of this 17-page judgment which I now quote:
"The gravity of this dispute is possibly commensurate to its paper bulk. Not so its ambit however. Only the interpretation of the few clauses in their contracts in which the parties dealt with the adjustment of one D particular item is involved. These are four civil engineering contracts falling, from this point of view, into two categories. To the first category belong the earthworks and formation contracts, and to the second category the roadworks and tunnel contracts.
To provide the contractor with some measure of relief against escalating costs as between the date of tender and the date of completion of the contract, the respondent devised and embodied into its standard forms of contract a formula, styled a 'cost adjustment factor'. The main components E of this factor are certain well known price indices published by the Department of Statistics. The sole question which falls to be answered is whether this cost adjustment factor is applicable to that item of work styled 'Establishment of camps and plant on site' for which lump sums are provided in the respective bills of quantities. Applicant, the contractor, contends that a on proper interpretation of their contract it is so applicable, whilst respondent urges that it is not. A typical description of this item is taken from the earthworks contract (at 48 of the papers) which reads..."
F There follows a quotation from s 1 (b) of the specifications and the judgment then continues:
"The main plank in the respondent's strenuous opposition to the escalation of establishment costs, is its contention that this preparatory work is done mainly immediately after award of the contract, whilst the actual construction work in respect whereof the contract is so vulnerable to G unknown economic vicissitudes is spread over the ensuing three years which is a relatively fair slice of the unforeseeable future. It is therefore unlikely that the parties could have had an escalation of establishment costs in mind. The applicant counters this general approach by pointing out that the old style variation of price clauses, which it produces for purposes of comparison, provided in great detail and at great length how rises in cost of labour and materials must be dealt with. In an attempt at achieving accuracy in reflecting such variations a rather H cumbersome procedure was designed. The cost adjustment factor method which replaces it is a far simpler one. Monthly variations in the official indices affect the monthly payments in such a way that it is perfectly possible that particular escalations of these payments may not bear any realistic relation to actual increases in cost to the contractor in respect of the work actually performed. Hence, so the counter-argument runs, this formula is largely rule of thumb, which is calculated to achieve an equitable result in the overall picture, in the totality of the consideration accruing to the contractor and that it is therefore misleading to enquire whether specific items of work such as this could conceivably be affected by the general upward trend of prices at the time of its performance. Both sides extracted a variety of examples from the copious contract documents to illustrate and add weight to their arguments.
Coetzee J
In listening to all these points so ably put forward by both counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffiths v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd
...earnings may not be a reliable yardstick of what another member would earn. In Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W) Coetzee J said in a review of taxation involving counsel's fees at 963H 'Perhaps more so than in other professions, skills at the Bar vary en......
-
Ocean Commodities Inc and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd and Others
...Master 1965 (2) SA 653; Scott and Another v Poupard and Another 1972 (1) SA 680; Reef Lefebvre C (Pty ) Ltd v SA Railways & Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961; Gundelfinger v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd 1916 TPD Hammerschlag in reply. Cur adv vult. D Postea (March 29). Judgment Rabie CJ:......
-
J D Van Niekerk en Genote Ing v Administrateur, Transvaal
...AD 642 op 651; Scott and Another v Poupard and Another 1972 (1) SA 686 (A) op 690C; Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W) op 963-7; Jacobs en Ehlers The Law of Attorneys' Costs and the Taxation Thereof (Juta, 1979) op 292. A Cur adv vult. C Postea (November ......
-
Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
...as may be helpful in the present dispute. I refer to the following E authorities: Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W). This matter related to counsel's fees. Only the headnote need be referred to. The Court held that skills at the Bar vary enormously over ......
-
Griffiths v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd
...earnings may not be a reliable yardstick of what another member would earn. In Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W) Coetzee J said in a review of taxation involving counsel's fees at 963H 'Perhaps more so than in other professions, skills at the Bar vary en......
-
Ocean Commodities Inc and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd and Others
...Master 1965 (2) SA 653; Scott and Another v Poupard and Another 1972 (1) SA 680; Reef Lefebvre C (Pty ) Ltd v SA Railways & Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961; Gundelfinger v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd 1916 TPD Hammerschlag in reply. Cur adv vult. D Postea (March 29). Judgment Rabie CJ:......
-
J D Van Niekerk en Genote Ing v Administrateur, Transvaal
...AD 642 op 651; Scott and Another v Poupard and Another 1972 (1) SA 686 (A) op 690C; Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W) op 963-7; Jacobs en Ehlers The Law of Attorneys' Costs and the Taxation Thereof (Juta, 1979) op 292. A Cur adv vult. C Postea (November ......
-
Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
...as may be helpful in the present dispute. I refer to the following E authorities: Reef Lefebvre (Pty) Ltd v SA Railways and Harbours 1978 (4) SA 961 (W). This matter related to counsel's fees. Only the headnote need be referred to. The Court held that skills at the Bar vary enormously over ......