Rhiri v Northern Assurance Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Rosenow J
• Judgment Date: 30 October 1961
• Citation: 1962 (4) SA 284 (C)
• Hearing Date: 30 October 1961
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Rosenow, J.:

In this matter plaintiff claimed payment in the sum of £4,000 for damages suffered as a result of a collision. The defendant admitted damages in the sum of £2,000, and paid a sum into Court in E terms of Rule of Court 24 in full satisfaction.

The plaintiff accepted the tender and bills of costs were then placed before the taxing master for taxation.

The plaintiff's attorneys are dissatisfied in regard to certain items and the matter comes before me for review in terms of Rule 48 (2).

F By Government Notice 2835 of 12th December, 1952, a uniform system of taxation was introduced by means of a new Rule for the Supreme Court of South Africa, and the various Rules in force in the four Provinces relating to taxation were repealed. In de Villiers v Estate Hunt, 1940 CPD 518 at p. 512, DAVIS, J., remarks:

'the Transvaal cases must be approached with the greatest caution. as G their Rules are quite different from ours'.

and in Buckley v Francke, 1950 (2) SA 709 (C) at p. 713, OGILVIE THOMPSON, J., as he then was, endorses this word of warning.

In Wellworths Bazaars Ltd v Chandlers Ltd. and Others, 1947 (4) SA 453 (T), MILLIN, J., remarks at p. 457:

'The law, as I conceive it to be, is that in general the discretion of a H taxing master will not be disturbed unless it is found that he did not exercise a proper discretion, for example, by disregarding factors which were proper for him to consider, or by considering matters which it was improper for him to consider, or by giving a ruling which the Court can see no reasonable person would have given. That is the general principle. But that principle has had engrafted upon it something else, and that this: there is a certain class of case where the point in issue is a point on which the Court is able to form as good an opinion as the taxing master and perhaps, even a better opinion. Examples of that class of case are these: First of all, the question whether the employment of more than one counsel was justified in the case. It is apparent that a Judge is in a better position to decide such a matter than the taxing master could be. Another example is when

Rosenow J

questions of relevancy of evidence arise. The taxing master may disallow the costs of an affidavit because he is of opinion that the affidavit was not relevant to any issue in the case. It is clear that the Judge must be in a better position to decide that point than the taxing master. So there has developed what I call a graft on the main principle. The Court will feel it its duty to correct the taxing master and substitute its own opinion for his opinion when the matter is one in A which the Court is at least as well able to judge as the taxing master is.'

In Nokwe v Stoltz and Others, 1960 (4) SA 79 (W) at p. 81, KUPER, J., accepts the exposition of the principles set out in the Wellworth case as correct, so that this appears still to be the law as at present applied in the Courts in the Transvaal.

In Bertish v Standard Bank of SA Ltd., 1956 (4) SA 9 (C), B HERBSTEIN, J., quotes the Wellworth principles at p. 11, but does not find it necessary to decide whether the Court can substitute its opinion for that of the taxing master in case where the Court is able to form as good an opinion as the taxing master.

In Preller v...