High Court Record

Mark Taitz  ·  Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser)

Case 18/13762 Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

An unsatisfied money judgment against Mark Taitz

In Wilson v Taitz, the court granted summary judgment against Mark Taitz. He was ordered to pay R1,716,790.28, with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of demand, being 16 October 2017, to date of payment, plus the costs of the Application.

Capital and interest, calculated to this moment

Capital plus interest currently calculates to approximately R3.28 million. Simple interest at 10.25% a year on R1,716,790.28, running from 16 October 2017. That is the prescribed rate that was in force when interest began to run, and it stays fixed for the life of the debt (Davehill (Pty) Ltd v Community Development 1988 (1) SA 290 (A)). Taxed costs are excluded, because they are not yet quantified. This is an arithmetic calculation, not an order of court. The order fixes the capital, the rate basis and the start date. The running figure is derived from them.

Interest has stopped running. Under the in duplum rule, unpaid interest cannot exceed the capital. The interest component has reached R1,716,790.28, so the total above is now fixed and will not increase.

What this page is

This page summarises published or certified High Court orders and judgments. It is not a finding of criminal conduct. It is not a credit listing. It is not an invitation to send documents or personal stories.

Every entry states the case number, the date, who the order binds, and what the order actually says. Where a matter is commonly misread, that is flagged inside the entry. Verify every item against the linked judgment or a certified copy.

Why more than one person appears here

Three of the four matters below involve Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) or her firm rather than Mark Taitz. Mark Taitz is listed on the MG Law / MG Attorneys website as its Chief Executive Officer, though he is not an attorney of record and was not a party to those matters. They are included because they are the published High Court matters connected to the same firm and individuals.

Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) is a director of the firms cited in two of the matters below, and was a party to three of them. She was not a party to case 18/13762 and was not the attorney of record in it; Mark Taitz was represented in that matter by Clarke Attorneys.

No order on this page requires Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) to pay anything

In one matter the lease was rectified so that she was not a co-lessee, and the claim against her was accordingly dismissed; in another the costs order ran in her favour. Readers should not infer from her presence on this page that she is a judgment debtor. Nor does this page make any finding about her conduct, which no order before it addresses.

Four matters, four different outcomes

Only the first is a money judgment against an individual. Read each order rather than the row.

Matter Case no. Date Who the order binds What the public record shows
Money judgment — Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg 18/13762 Mark Taitz Summary judgment. Pay R1,716,790.28 plus interest at the prescribed rate from the date of demand, being 16 Oct 2017, plus costs of the Application.
Lease / guarantee claim 27365/2021
[2022] ZAGPJHC 81		 Gunzenhauser Attorneys (Pty) Ltd 2018/225530/07; Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) cited as guarantor Claim was R503,305.60 plus interest and costs. The published judgment decides procedure only. Summary judgment postponed. No payment order in that judgment.
Residential lease arrears 2021/10258
[2022] ZAGPJHC 726		 Navisure (Pty) Ltd t/a Navibon 2019/084594/07 Company ordered to pay R420,788.06 plus costs on the attorney and own client scale. Claim against Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) personally dismissed after the lease was rectified, though she was ordered to pay limited costs.
Urgent eviction 2024/098805
[2024] ZAGPJHC 909		 Texton Property Fund Ltd, the applicant — not the respondents Urgent eviction struck from the roll. Applicant ordered to pay respondents’ costs. Not an eviction order.

The records

Citation, the parties exactly as cited on the papers, and the substance of each order.

Unsatisfied order to pay — against Mark Taitz personally

Wilson v Taitz

High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg. Case 18/13762. Judgment .

Defendant in the order
Mark Taitz
Why he was liable in person
The claim was founded on a deed of suretyship signed by Mark Taitz in respect of the obligations of SA Digital Holdings. A surety is liable in his own name for the principal debtor’s debt, which is why the order runs against him and not only against the company.
How it was decided
By summary judgment. The defendant entered an appearance to defend and filed an affidavit opposing summary judgment, contending that the suretyship covered only an earlier R500,000 loan which had been repaid. The court granted judgment against him.
Order (substance)
Payment of R1,716,790.28; interest at the prescribed rate running from the date of demand, being 16 October 2017, to date of payment; costs of the Application.
Status
The judgment creditor’s position is that the order has not been satisfied. Interest continues to run until payment.
Source
Certified copy of the order, obtainable from the registrar of the Gauteng Local Division. This matter was not located on SAFLII when this page was compiled. A SAFLII link will be added if it is later published.

Procedural ruling — no payment order

City Square Trading 522 (Pty) Ltd v Gunzenhauser Attorneys (Pty) Ltd and Another

(27365/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 81; 2022 (3) SA 458 (GJ) ()

Parties as cited
Plaintiff — City Square Trading 522 (Pty) Ltd. First defendant — Gunzenhauser Attorneys (Pty) Ltd, 2018/225530/07. Second defendant — Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser), cited as guarantor.
Claimed in the summons
Unpaid rental of R503,305.60 plus interest and costs under two leases. Claimed in a summons. Not ordered in this judgment.
What this judgment decided
A Rule 30 dispute about a supplementary affidavit in a summary-judgment application. The Rule 30 application was dismissed, the supplementary affidavit was declared properly filed, summary judgment was postponed and costs were reserved.
Source
Full judgment on SAFLII
Do not read this as an order to pay R503,305.60

That amount is what the summons claimed. No such order appears in this judgment. A claim in a summons is not an order. This judgment does not disclose what became of the summary judgment application after it was postponed.

Order to pay — against Navisure (Pty) Ltd

Ensemble Hotel Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Gunzenhauser and Another

(2021/10258) [2022] ZAGPJHC 726 ()

Parties as cited
Applicant — Ensemble Hotel Holdings (Pty) Ltd. First respondent — Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser). Second respondent — Navisure (Pty) Ltd t/a Navibon, 2019/084594/07.
Order (substance)
Navisure (Pty) Ltd to pay R282,454.31 and R138,333.75 — R420,788.06 in total — with interest at the prescribed rate, and the costs of the application on the attorney and own client scale.
Also ordered
The lease was rectified to remove any reference to Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) as a co-lessee, and the application against her was dismissed with costs. She was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the notice of motion and founding affidavit only, which the court described as a mark of its displeasure at her not having pleaded rectification in the earlier Magistrates’ Court action.
Source
Full judgment on SAFLII
The payment order binds the company, not the individual

Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) is not the judgment debtor in this matter. The costs she was ordered to pay are the limited ones set out above.

Struck from the roll — costs against the applicant

Texton Property Fund Ltd v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others

(2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 ()

Parties as cited
Applicant — Texton Property Fund Ltd, 2005/019302/06. First respondent — Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated t/a MG Law, 2019/575014/21. Second respondent — Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser). Third respondent — the unlawful occupiers of the ground floor offices. The SAFLII case title spells the applicant “Textton”; the judgment itself reads Texton.
What was asked
Urgent eviction from commercial offices in Sandton. What the applicant asked for. Struck from the roll.
Order
The matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. The applicant was ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs on Scale A, including the costs of the respondents’ own application to supplement their papers.
Source
Full judgment on SAFLII
Do not read this as an eviction

Only the urgent hearing was struck, and the costs order went against the applicant. The underlying premises dispute is not decided here.

Names and entities on the papers

Separate companies are separate defendants. An order against one is not an order against the others.

Name on the papers Registration Role in the cited case
Mark Taitz — Judgment debtor in 18/13762
Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser) — Cited in 27365/2021, 2021/10258 and 2024/098805. Outcomes differ — read each order.
Gunzenhauser Attorneys (Pty) Ltd 2018/225530/07 First defendant in City Square
Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Inc t/a MG Law 2019/575014/21 First respondent in Texton
Navisure (Pty) Ltd t/a Navibon 2019/084594/07 Ordered to pay in Ensemble Hotel

Names and spellings are reproduced as they appear on the papers. Michal Gunzenhauser is the name now used professionally by the attorney cited in these papers as Maxine Gunzenhauser.

Professional roles, from public sources

Included only to explain why the case captions read as they do.

Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser), cited in court papers under the first of those names, is an admitted attorney. On her LinkedIn profile she lists herself as founding partner of MG Law / MG Attorneys. A 2021 public profile describes her as founder and managing partner of MG Law, opened September 2019.

Mark Taitz is listed on the same firm’s website as Chief Executive Officer, and his LinkedIn profile is under MG Attorneys Inc. The firm page describes a strategy and leadership role. It does not present him as the attorney of record.

The same 2021 profile describes the two of them, with other partners, launching an online travel business trading as NaviBon. Navisure (Pty) Ltd t/a Navibon is the company later ordered to pay in case 2021/10258.

Why some captions name the firm and not the CEO

Litigation against a law practice is usually cited against the incorporated firm and the admitted attorney. A chief executive who is not the attorney on the roll is often not a party at all, unless sued personally — as in 18/13762 — or named as a surety or guarantor.

Sources: mglaw.co.za team page; the two LinkedIn profiles linked alongside; topbusinesswomen.co.za, “Maxine Gunzenhauser founder of MG Law” (January 2021).

Career history as publicly listed

Roles, organisations and dates exactly as each person states them on their own public LinkedIn profile. Nothing in this section comes from a court record, and nothing here implies wrongdoing by any organisation named.

Mark Taitz

As listed on his public LinkedIn profile, which the profile itself states is partly managed by his publicist

  • CEO, Co-FounderMG Attorneys Inc.July 2019 – present
  • CEO, FounderDMM — Digital Marketing ManagementDecember 2013 – present
  • CEO, Co-FounderNaviBonOctober 2018 – July 2022Navisure (Pty) Ltd t/a Navibon is the company ordered to pay in case 2021/10258, set out above.

Stated by Mark Taitz on his own profile

The profile also carries a number of claims about his own standing. It describes him as holding an unofficial record as the youngest self-made high-net-worth individual in South African history, achieved at 25; as a globally recognised high-stakes negotiator with an unbeaten record, commanding fees approaching $100,000 an hour in one disclosed instance; as the founder of one of the largest clinics in New York; and as having launched dozens of businesses across more than fifteen industries.

These are his own published statements about himself. They are reproduced here as he publishes them. This page has not verified them and takes no position on whether they are accurate.

Source: za.linkedin.com/in/drmarktaitz; mglaw.co.za team page.

Maxine Gunzenhauser (Michal Gunzenhauser)

As listed on her public LinkedIn profile, under the name Michal Gunzenhauser

  • DirectorMG Attorneys Inc.October 2023 – present
  • DirectorMG Law IncorporatedOctober 2018 – December 2024
  • Business Development DirectorSA Digital Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Digital Marketing Management (DMM)2016 – 2018The role does not appear on her current LinkedIn profile, which shows no entry between January 2016 and October 2018. The business directories ZoomInfo and RocketReach both list her at DMM, ZoomInfo giving the title as Business Development Director. It was an internal role rather than a registered office: the particulars of claim in case 18/13762 record Mark Taitz as the sole shareholder and director of the company. The January 2021 Top Women article records that after Webber Wentzel she joined Mark Taitz in building a digital marketing agency, which it says grew from two people to forty employees within its first year. SA Digital Holdings is the company whose debt Mark Taitz stood surety for in case 18/13762, and which went into voluntary liquidation on or about 1 November 2017.

Stated by Michal Gunzenhauser on her own profile

Her profile describes MG Law as a disruptive firm built around ethics, transparency and strategy, which trains its attorneys in psychology and negotiation and has eliminated billing targets entirely in favour of a minimum-force rule aimed at keeping billable hours low.

Source: za.linkedin.com/in/michal-gunzenhauser-53793549; topbusinesswomen.co.za (January 2021).

How to read this page

What this page does not do