Summons: what I am doing (as a private individual)

[sakkie]

I am starting this thread to show people that we as private individuals do not have to get heart failure if we receive a summons.

My case is against an attorney that advised us during an issue we had (still having) with SARS. I wont go into any detail but the long and the short of it is that he is suing me for fees in addition to what we have already paid. I am of the opinion that he is not entitled to the extra fees.

So what has happened so far:

1. I received a summons for the outstanding amount.
2. I filed a Notice of intention to defend.
3. I then received a notice i.t.o. rule 23 (15) to submit the documents that I intend to use in my defense.
4. I filed my plea.
5. I ignored the Notice in point 3 above as pleadings have not closed.
6. I received a notice that the matter in point 3 is set down for a hearing on 4 December 2015.

As this case progresses I will post updates.

Any advise/comments/questions are welcome.

[Rafael]

This will be interesting to follow.

Thanks

[sakkie]

Forgot to mention that I also lodged a complaint with the KZN Law Society and requested that his account and invoices be assessed.

[Justloadit]

I once sued a conveyencer for not doing her job. Fortunately it never went to court, and I got paid out the interest that I lost due to her poor performance.
Far too long lawyers and attorneys have been charging for services, which were not up to standard and of poor performance.

I am of the opinion, that if I lose the case, then I should not pay the lawyer/attorney. That may sound callous, but the attorney should know if the case is strong enough to win, and in so doing is actually looking after the client, as opposed to taking the clients money full knowing that there is a very slim chance of actually winning the case, but going to court guarantees him payment by the client.

I f I do not perform I do not get paid, so why should it be any different.

[sakkie]

I am of the opinion, that if I lose the case, then I should not pay the lawyer/attorney. That may sound callous, but the attorney should know if the case is strong enough to win, and in so doing is actually looking after the client, as opposed to taking the clients money full knowing that there is a very slim chance of actually winning the case, but going to court guarantees him payment by the client.

My argument exactly. The Tax Administration Act is clear, and yet the lawyer spent in excess of R 25k looking for ways to "bypass" the Act, including almost R 10k worth of consulting with ex-SARS auditors.

[sakkie]

Just an update.

The matter was set down for hearing today (4 December 2015). The following transpired.

1. We had a pre-trial conference with the Magistrate.
2. In the meeting I pointed out that the Plaintiff that Rule 23(15) refers to a SPECIFIC document. The description of the documents that he requested was vague and should have been requested under Rule 23(1-3) AFTER pleading have closed.
3. The Plaintiff then withdrew his application, the Magistrate granted it with cost in force (not sure of the spelling).
4. I filed my documents at the same time (the documents that was requested).

[flaker]

Thanks for update Sakkie. Following with interest although not au fait with matters legal.

Surely this attorney with have known the rules and am just wondering whether he'd thought that you would just give up.

[GertH]

Good luck, Sakkie. Keep us in the loop

[sakkie]

Surely this attorney with have known the rules and am just wondering whether he'd thought that you would just give up.

I think it was more a scare tactic from their side. I think he did not really expect me to show up.

I have now received a Notice ito Rule 19(1). I have 15 days to reply and with all the upcoming holidays my reply is due on the 29th of December 2015. I will submit on the 28th.

I have also received confirmation from the KZN Law Society that they have received my complaint.

[sakkie]

I have replied on the Notice ito Rule 19(1). I filed my reply wih the Clerk of the Court but the attorney for the plaintiff was closed and I will only be able to deliver the answer to him tomorrow 6 January 2016. Not sure how this will affect my case. So its wait and see I guess.