Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company Soc Limited and Others

The applicant, Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated, applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal a judgment of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. On 14 June 2023, the leave to appeal was dismissed with costs. The respondents prepared Bills of Costs and on 28 February 2024, a Notice of Taxation was served on the applicant's correspondent attorneys, setting the matter down for taxation on 20 March 2024 before the Taxing Master. The applicant did not appear at the taxation, and the bills were taxed on an unopposed basis on 20 March 2024, with the allocatur completed on that date. On 23 September 2024, the applicant initiated a review procedure under SCA rule 17, well outside the 20-day period contemplated by the rule. The applicant had to apply for condonation, which succeeded on 28 May 2025. In the interim, the taxing master resigned without stating a case for the decision of a judge.

• Whether a party who failed to attend taxation and did not object before the taxing master can invoke the review of taxation procedure in terms of SCA rule 17
• Whether SCA rule 17(3) applies to items allowed by the taxing master where no objection was made during taxation
• What remedy is available to a party who fails to attend taxation proceedings

The application was dismissed with costs.

The binding principle established is that SCA rule 17(3) only permits review of a taxing master's ruling where: (a) the item was objected to before the taxing master, or (b) the taxing master disallowed it mero motu. A party who fails to attend taxation and does not object before the taxing master cannot thereafter invoke the review of taxation procedure in terms of SCA rule 17. Such a party must instead apply for the setting aside of the taxation on the same basis as default judgments are set aside, applying common law principles applicable to setting aside default judgments.

The court noted but did not decide the question raised by the Chief Registrar regarding what should happen when a taxing master resigns after having taxed a bill of costs but before delivering a stated case. The Chief Registrar's view was that bills would have to be taxed de novo in such circumstances because another taxing master would have difficulty providing a stated case without the benefit of submissions made at the original taxation, and cannot interfere with the discretion of the original taxing master. Ponnan JA observed that while this would be an interesting debate, it need not be decided as rule 17 did not avail the applicant in the circumstances. The court also referenced the principle that the taxing master's allocatur is a quasi-judicial administrative act requiring the taxing master to hear parties and exercise judicial discretion, with proceedings before the taxing master constituting 'an action in miniature'.

This case clarifies the limited scope of the review procedure under SCA rule 17 for taxation of bills of costs. It establishes that the rule only applies where objections were raised before the taxing master or where the taxing master disallowed items mero motu. It confirms that a party who fails to attend taxation proceedings cannot use the rule 17 review procedure but must instead apply to set aside the allocatur on the same basis as setting aside default judgments. This judgment reinforces procedural discipline and the importance of attending taxation proceedings and raising objections timeously.