On the recommendation of the South African Law Commission the legislature enacted s 2(3), which grants condonation powers to the court in specific circumstances: 'If a court is satisfied that a document ... drafted or executed by a person who has died since the drafting or execution thereof, was intended to be his will ... the court shall order the Master to accept that document ... for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act [66 of 1965], as a will, although it does not comply with all the formalities for the execution or amendment of wills referred to in subsection (1).'
It is quite simple if you are a trade-mark owner. If you want protection for your trade mark in South Africa, you instruct your attorney to file a South African trade-mark application and you are charged a modest fee. If you want protection in the USA, your attorney instructs his US associate to file a US application and you are charged a decidedly immodest fee. If your business interests extend to Angola, your attorney instructs one of the few attorneys in Angola to file an Angolan application and you are presented with a veritable 'brazen hussy ' of a fee . You get the picture - a separate, so called 'national' application in each country where you want protection and no correlation between the economic importance of the country and the cost.
In Whittlesea v Clerk of the Civil Court, Pietermaritzburg 1992 (1) SA 603 (N) the court discussed the possible interpretation of s 67 of the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act) and found that s 67(3) did not apply to the party-and-party fees prescribed. by the magistrate's court tariff (606 E-F). The court's reasoning was that in terms of s 64 of the Act '[a]ny price charged by any vendor in respect of any taxable supply of goods or services shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to include any tax payable in terms of s 7(1)(a) in respect of such supply' and that it seemed that s 67(3) was introduced to overcome any problem created where a vendor's charges are prescribed by law.
It sometimes happens that a person believes that he has a cause of action against another, but requires, in order to establish his case, documentation or other evidence which is in the possession or under the control of the person he wishes to sue. The danger then exists that his adversary will frustrate the claimant's action by destroying or concealing the evidence which the claimant needs in order to prove his claim. A novel remedy that was devised in England to prevent such a situation from arising is the 'Anton Piller order', named after one of the early English cases in which an order of that type was sought, Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd & Others [1976) I All ER 779 (CA). The order is to the effect that the party applying for relief is permitted to search the premises of his adversary for the evidence in question, and upon finding it, to seize and remove that evidence so as to preserve it for the purposes of the trial (or main application) which will follow in due course.
The unreported decision in Aircraft Completions Centre (Pty) Ltd v PJ Rossouw and Others (W) (case 23790/2001) endeavours to provide a summary of the law relating to attorney-and-client bills of costs. The principal question of law discussed by the court in this matter revolves around the basis of taxation to be applied when one party (the costs debtor) has been ordered or has agreed to pay the costs of the other (the costs creditor) as taxed on attorney-and-client scale.
While a taxpayer is free to organize his affairs as he chooses, nevertheless, once having done so, he must accept the tax consequences of his choice, whether contemplated or not, and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route he might have chosen to follow but did not.'
While the Internet offers exciting new opportunities, transforming the way companies and other organisations conduct their businesses, its technology has provided the means to gather the electronic mail (e-mail) addresses of users and to distribute information to them easily, quickly and at almost no cost. Unlike in the traditional print media, the originator of e-mail often bears none or very little of the distribution costs because email is considered a free feature of Internet access.