A v Road Accident Fund (42987/2012) [2016] ZAGPJHC 328 (28 November 2016)

A v Road Accident Fund (42987/2012) [2016] ZAGPJHC 328 (28 November 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff suffered significant neuro-cognitive and psychological impairments, as evidenced by expert reports and admissions. These impairments materially reduce his competitiveness in the open labour market, justifying a contingency deduction double the usual provision. The court accepted the calculation of past medical expenses and the total damages as presented. Given the complexity, magnitude, and expert involvement in the case, the employment of two counsel was deemed reasonable. The defendant's failure to attend a meaningful pre-trial conference and the disruptive conduct of its expert warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and own client scale. The...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 328
Parties
Plaintiff: A; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Case Number
42987/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages awarded as calculated. Costs awarded on an attorney and own client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deduction, Costs Order, Expert Evidence, Punitive Costs
Delict Civil Procedure Loss of Earnings Contingency Deduction Costs Order Expert Evidence Punitive Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction for future loss of earnings given the plaintiff's injuries and employment prospects.
  2. 2 Whether the costs of two counsel were a reasonable precaution in this matter.
  3. 3 Whether a special costs order should be made due to the defendant's conduct during litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff suffered significant neuro-cognitive and psychological impairments, as evidenced by expert reports and admissions. These impairments materially reduce his competitiveness in the open labour market, justifying a contingency deduction double the usual provision. The court accepted the calculation of past medical expenses and the total damages as presented. Given the complexity, magnitude, and expert involvement in the case, the employment of two counsel was deemed reasonable. The defendant's failure to attend a meaningful pre-trial conference and the disruptive conduct of its expert warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and own client scale. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages awarded as calculated. Costs awarded on an attorney and own client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R5,806,615.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on an attorney and own client scale, including the costs of two counsel.