In this Rule 43 application, the court disallowed the applicant’s attorney from charging fees as a consequence of the extreme prolixity of the founding papers. Judge Mossop said:
“In my view, the growing trend of presenting Rule 43 applications that are lengthy and that do not comply with the prescripts of Rule 43 must be halted. Judges simply do not have the time to peruse lengthy affidavits that narrate every misstep and alleged wrongdoing of a spouse. Often these allegations are included simply to colour the court’s mind against a particular party. One way of potentially halting these abuses is to order costs against a party that is guilty of prolixity. [13] I am, however, prepared to assume and accept that the applicant personally had no knowledge of what her application should contain. Those that had such knowledge, and who must have known that the application that was prepared for the applicant offended the provisions of Rule 43, were her legal advisors. It may therefore be unfair to punish the applicant’s pocket with a costs order against her. Far better in my view, is the approach that was adopted in Visser v Visser, 8 where the court directed that the attorneys acting for both parties where the papers presented by both sides were prolix should not be able to charge their respective clients for work done in respect of the rule 43 application. That reasoning commends itself to me and I shall follow its lead. Hopefully, such an order will cause legal practitioners to show greater discipline in preparing these types of applications.”