Teresa Thring and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (46032/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 784 (31 July 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 784 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Teresa Thring and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (46032/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 784 (31 July 2025) Teresa Thring and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (46032/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 784 (31 July 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_784.html sino date 31 July 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  46032/2018 DATE : 29-07-2025 (1) REPORTABLE:  NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  NO. (3) REVISED. DATE 29 July 2025 In the matter between TERESA THRING AND ANOTHER                      Applicants and ABSA BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS                  Respondents JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE WILSON, J : This is an application to rescind an order of Pillay AJ, granted some three years ago, which set a reserve price on a property bonded to the first respondent, ABSA Bank. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the applicants informed me that the applicants wish to withdraw their application with a tender for costs on the party and party scale. ABSA is content for the application to be withdrawn but seeks costs on the attorney and client scale. Accordingly, the only contentious issue before me is the scale of costs that should be ordered against the applicants. It is common cause between the parties that the mortgage loan agreement governing their relationship provides for costs on the attorney and client scale in the event and to the extent that the loan agreement needs to be enforced in court. Moreover, this is a full opposed application, in which papers have been filed, counsel has been briefed, but which has been prosecuted half-heartedly. The applicants did not file heads and let the application drift for several months.  The respondents had to file heads and set the matter down.  In these circumstances, given what the agreement says and the unfortunate and inappropriate way in which the application was prosecuted, I think an order on the attorney and client scale is both necessary and appropriate. For all these reasons I make the following order- 1 The applicants given leave to withdraw their application. 2 The applicants are directed to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and client. WILSON, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT 29 July 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start