Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Trend Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against parts of a High Court order relating to payments made by Trend Finance (Pty) Ltd in respect of certain consignments and the allocation of costs. A provisional order had earlier been made by the SCA directing Trend to pay half of the Commissioner’s appeal costs, while Trend’s cross-appeal was dismissed with costs. The present judgment reconsidered that provisional costs order after receiving further written argument. The appeal involved two severable issues: (a) whether SARS was obliged to refund amounts paid by Trend in respect of the second and third consignments, and (b) whether SARS should pay all of Trend’s costs in the court a quo. SARS succeeded on the costs issue but failed on the substantive refund issue, which involved a substantial sum.

The provisional order was replaced with an order directing the Commissioner to pay three-quarters of Trend’s costs of the appeal. The Commissioner was also ordered to pay the costs of Trend’s application to vary the provisional costs order.

The case is significant for clarifying and reinforcing South African appellate principles on the apportionment of costs where appeals involve distinct and severable issues. It illustrates the flexibility of appellate courts in crafting equitable costs orders that reflect the true balance of success rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach.