48 must comply with its basic requisites before a review of a taxation can proceed under that rule. [10] The first defendant’s notice plainly did not comply with Rule 48. It was not a proper notice for the purpose of the rule. The Taxing Master was thus not required to state a case for a decision by a judge. There is thus no review before me. The plaintiff did not file any contentions. His legal practitioners withdrew subsequent to the filing of the notice. The plaintiff’s costs are limited to receipt of the defect notice. [11] The following order is made: The first defendant’s notice to review the allocator of the Taxing Master of 19 March 2013 is dismissed with costs as being defective. _____________ DF SMUTS Judge
48 must comply with its basic requisites before a review of a taxation can proceed under that rule. [10] The first defendant’s notice plainly did not comply with Rule 48. It was not a proper notice for the purpose of the rule. The Taxing Master was thus not required to state a case for a decision by a judge. There is thus no review before me. The plaintiff did not file any contentions. His legal practitioners withdrew subsequent to the filing of the notice. The plaintiff’s costs are limited to receipt of the defect notice. [11] The following order is made: The first defendant’s notice to review the allocator of the Taxing Master of 19 March 2013 is dismissed with costs as being defective. _____________ DF SMUTS Judge
Pascheka%20v%20Engelbrecht%20and%20Another%20(I%204126-2011)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%20268%20(30%20September%202013).docx