From: Jon White [jonwhite@sai.co.za]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:30 PM
To: Anthony Brink
Subject: application
Importance: High
Dear Anthony
I regret to advise that the
application was dismissed on the grounds of lack of urgency.
The matter did not then porceed to
the merits.
The judge was Daya Pillay.
She noted that you received notice
of intention to tax in June 2015, but only launched this application on 29
September.
She said that whatever
communications you had with the respondents beofre launching the applictaion did
not go to relieving you of your obligation to give the respondents,
"public officials as they are", reasonable notice to enable them to
defend themselves.
Furthermore, the application to
interdict the taxation was at least two steps away from the sale in execution
of your property to satisfy the taxed costs. The second respondent would have
to issue a writ and have the goods removed and the advertise the sale before
the goods could be sold in execution.
Any urgency was of your own making.
She said that you ought to know
better about legal process.
Legal Aid SA sought a special order
for costs on the basis of spurious allegations in your affidavit alleging
malice on the part of the JP of the Labour Appeal Court. She said the gist of
your complaint on the merits appeared to be that the petition against the
judgment of the Labour Court was refused purportedly by the judges of the LAC
and that such petition judgment was a fraud. Your investigations revealed
allegedly that no such judgment was signed by the judges purporting to have
disposed of the petition.
If there was any merit to your claim
that judges of the LAC were being paraded fraudulently, she had no doubt that
the officials of the court would have acted without hesitation.
She said that as an officer of the
court you should have known of your rights and the appropriate channels of
communication in amatter of fraud was to report the matter to the police.
She said you ought to be aware of
the appropriate style of communication with officers of the court and award
them the appropriate (I think the word she used was respect).
This did not detract from your
freedom to report judges to the JSC.
You had to do such in a way that
maintains the integrity and reputation of the institutions. Your style of
communication was not professional and deferential to the office of the
officials.
In the circumstances, she ordered
you to pay costs on the attorney and client scale.
I confirm that you paid me R10 000.
We did not discuss an overall fee. The sheriffs' fees were considerable because
of the urgency of service.
The Pinetown sheriff's fee was
R1281.40.
The Johannesburg North sheriff's fee
was R1077.97
The Durban Coastal sheriff's fee was
R727.32.
TOTAL R3086.69
I would suggest that my fees should
be in the region of R15 000 plus the sheriffs' costs in the sum of R3086.69,
totalling R18 000. This would mean you would owe me a balance of R8 000. Please
let me know if this is acceptable.
regards
Jon