briefco

In Meer v Taxing Master and Another 1967 (4) SA 652 (D), the court, in reviewing a taxation, had to assess whether the taxing master was correct in disallowing certain items in the bill of costs. The specific items include costs in respect of instructing claims investigators before the issue of summons, to investigate the

In Linton & Co v Assistant Taxing Master 1972 (2) SA 550 (D), two main points were considered by the court in the review of a taxation. First, the court had to consider the rules relating to the fees recoverable for the time spent by an attorney waiting in court for matters to be called.

In Fourie v The Taxing Master and Another 1983 (4) SA 210 (O), the court gave an accurate interpretation of the meaning and scope of Rule 48(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 48(1) requires the taxing master to state a case for the decision of a Judge, which case sets out each item

In Deputy Sheriff, East London v The Taxing Master 1990 (3) SA 282 (E), the court was tasked with determining, among other things, whether the deputy sheriff was entitled to claim a fee for effecting service on multiple respondents or whether a singular fee was only permitted in light of the respondents being, based on

In Composting Engineering (Pty) Ltd v The Taxing Master 1985 (3) SA 249 (C), Judge Berman reaffirmed a standing principle that it is not the function of the taxing master to decide whether or not a specific mandate (such as a fixed fee arrangement) had been given by a client to an attorney, as this

In Coetzee v Taxing Master, South Gauteng High Court and Another 2013 (1) SA 74 (GSJ), Judge Sutherland was tasked with determining whether an attorney who does not conclude a fee agreement with a client in a litigious matter can be paid a fee different to that prescribed in the tariff in Rule 70 of

In Buonanno v The Taxing Master 1965 (2) SA 653 (N), the court considered the principles for the review of taxation as contemplated in Rule 48 of the Rules of Court. Rule 48(1) provides that any party dissatisfied with the ruling of the taxing master as to any item or part of an item which

In Blaauw v Taxing Master 1947 (1) SA 721 (SWA), the applicant sought a mandamus upon the taxing master to tax a bill of costs. The court held that the taxing master’s authority to tax bills of costs extends only to such law suits in which there is an order upon one or other of