《统一规则》第70条规定的诉讼费用的征税:作为律师的律师有权获得律师提供的同等报酬

F. Moosa
{"title":"《统一规则》第70条规定的诉讼费用的征税:作为律师的律师有权获得律师提供的同等报酬","authors":"F. Moosa","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unlike during the apartheid era, high courts are no longer the terrain of advocates solely. By law, qualifying attorneys have a right of audience there. When attorneys render services usually performed by advocates and they secure a party-and-party costs order for their clients, then a question arising is whether the unsuccessful litigant is liable to indemnify the successful litigant on the lower tariff ordinarily applicable to attorneys' fees under Uniform Rule 70, or the higher tariff of reasonable fees applied to advocates under Uniform Rule 69. This important issue in the law of costs forms the core subject of this article. It engages therewith through a critical analysis of the prevailing case law dealing with Uniform Rule 70(3) read with Uniform Rule 70 tariff item A(10), as well as an application of the mandatory interpretive directive in section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 taken with the tools of textual, contextual and purposive interpretation.\nThis article argues that Taxing Masters, as gatekeepers of fairness and practicality in determining the recoverability of litigation costs, cannot when taxing a party-and-party bill apply one standard or set of rules for assessing advocates' fees in relation to high court work and then apply another for assessing attorneys' fees for doing the same (or substantially the same) work. Such a situation would be inimical to the tenets of the rule of law promoting justice and equity which apply at a taxation, being a legal proceeding in a forum envisaged by section 34 of the Constitution. This article argues further that Taxing Masters must embrace the salutary principle that attorneys are entitled to equal pay for equal work done as counsel, and that a contrary approach would endorse the notion that advocates are more equal than attorneys, a view antithetical to the values of and fundamental rights to dignity and equality entrenched in the Constitution, all of which find application when a Taxing Master exercises his public powers under Uniform Rule 70(1).","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taxation of Litigation Costs under Uniform Rule 70: Attorneys Acting as Counsel are Entitled to Equal Reimbursement for Equal Work by Advocates\",\"authors\":\"F. Moosa\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Unlike during the apartheid era, high courts are no longer the terrain of advocates solely. By law, qualifying attorneys have a right of audience there. When attorneys render services usually performed by advocates and they secure a party-and-party costs order for their clients, then a question arising is whether the unsuccessful litigant is liable to indemnify the successful litigant on the lower tariff ordinarily applicable to attorneys' fees under Uniform Rule 70, or the higher tariff of reasonable fees applied to advocates under Uniform Rule 69. This important issue in the law of costs forms the core subject of this article. It engages therewith through a critical analysis of the prevailing case law dealing with Uniform Rule 70(3) read with Uniform Rule 70 tariff item A(10), as well as an application of the mandatory interpretive directive in section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 taken with the tools of textual, contextual and purposive interpretation.\\nThis article argues that Taxing Masters, as gatekeepers of fairness and practicality in determining the recoverability of litigation costs, cannot when taxing a party-and-party bill apply one standard or set of rules for assessing advocates' fees in relation to high court work and then apply another for assessing attorneys' fees for doing the same (or substantially the same) work. Such a situation would be inimical to the tenets of the rule of law promoting justice and equity which apply at a taxation, being a legal proceeding in a forum envisaged by section 34 of the Constitution. This article argues further that Taxing Masters must embrace the salutary principle that attorneys are entitled to equal pay for equal work done as counsel, and that a contrary approach would endorse the notion that advocates are more equal than attorneys, a view antithetical to the values of and fundamental rights to dignity and equality entrenched in the Constitution, all of which find application when a Taxing Master exercises his public powers under Uniform Rule 70(1).\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14689\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14689","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与种族隔离时代不同的是,高等法院不再仅仅是倡导者的领地。根据法律规定,符合条件的律师有权出庭。当律师提供通常由辩护人提供的服务,并为其客户获得当事人和当事人费用令时,就会出现一个问题,即不成功的诉讼当事人是否有责任按照统一规则第70条通常适用于律师费的较低费率向成功的诉讼人进行赔偿,或根据统一规则第69条适用于辩护人的合理费用的更高关税。成本法中的这一重要问题构成了本文的核心主题。它通过对涉及统一规则70(3)的现行判例法的批判性分析,以及对1996年《南非共和国宪法》第39(2)节中强制性解释性指令的应用,采用文本、上下文和目的性解释的工具。本文认为,税务大师作为确定诉讼费用可收回性的公平性和实用性的守门人,在对当事人和当事人法案征税时,不能应用一种标准或一套规则来评估与高等法院工作有关的辩护人费用,然后应用另一种标准和规则来评估从事相同(或基本相同)工作的律师费用。这种情况将不利于适用于税收的促进正义和公平的法治原则,而税收是《宪法》第34条所设想的法院的法律程序。这篇文章进一步认为,向律师征税必须接受一项有益的原则,即律师有权获得与律师同等的报酬,而相反的做法将认可辩护人比律师更平等的观念,这种观点与宪法中确立的尊严和平等的价值观和基本权利背道而驰,当税务局长根据统一规则70(1)行使其公共权力时,所有这些都适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Taxation of Litigation Costs under Uniform Rule 70: Attorneys Acting as Counsel are Entitled to Equal Reimbursement for Equal Work by Advocates
Unlike during the apartheid era, high courts are no longer the terrain of advocates solely. By law, qualifying attorneys have a right of audience there. When attorneys render services usually performed by advocates and they secure a party-and-party costs order for their clients, then a question arising is whether the unsuccessful litigant is liable to indemnify the successful litigant on the lower tariff ordinarily applicable to attorneys' fees under Uniform Rule 70, or the higher tariff of reasonable fees applied to advocates under Uniform Rule 69. This important issue in the law of costs forms the core subject of this article. It engages therewith through a critical analysis of the prevailing case law dealing with Uniform Rule 70(3) read with Uniform Rule 70 tariff item A(10), as well as an application of the mandatory interpretive directive in section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 taken with the tools of textual, contextual and purposive interpretation. This article argues that Taxing Masters, as gatekeepers of fairness and practicality in determining the recoverability of litigation costs, cannot when taxing a party-and-party bill apply one standard or set of rules for assessing advocates' fees in relation to high court work and then apply another for assessing attorneys' fees for doing the same (or substantially the same) work. Such a situation would be inimical to the tenets of the rule of law promoting justice and equity which apply at a taxation, being a legal proceeding in a forum envisaged by section 34 of the Constitution. This article argues further that Taxing Masters must embrace the salutary principle that attorneys are entitled to equal pay for equal work done as counsel, and that a contrary approach would endorse the notion that advocates are more equal than attorneys, a view antithetical to the values of and fundamental rights to dignity and equality entrenched in the Constitution, all of which find application when a Taxing Master exercises his public powers under Uniform Rule 70(1).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1