Bane and Others v D'Ambrosi (279/08) [2009] ZASCA 98; 2010 (2) SA 539 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 101 (SCA) (17 September 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the respondent's loss of earning capacity should be measured by the difference between his likely earnings in London and his actual earnings in South Africa, the cost of living differential cannot be ignored. The evidence did not provide a precise quantification of the adjustment, but the court found it necessary to apply a further contingency deduction of 20% to the London earnings to achieve a fair award. The court rejected the appellants' argument that future medical expenses should be limited to additional premiums, confirming that medical aid payments are contractual and not deductible. The respondent's claim for future increases in income...
- Citation
- [2009] ZASCA 98
- Parties
- Appellant: Dr Roy Bane; Appellant: Dr K Michalowski; Appellant: Dr Hayhurst; Appellant: Dr Bowden; Appellant: Drs Morton & Partners; Respondent: Marco D'Ambrosi
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2009
- Case Number
- 279/08
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Cape Town (van Zyl J and Traverso Djp)
- Outcome
- Appeal succeeds in part; cross-appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Brand, Jafta, Maya, Hurt, Leach
- Legal Topics
- Quantification of Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity, Cost of Living Adjustment, Future Medical Expenses, Interest on Damages
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr Roy Bane
Appellant
Dr K Michalowski
Appellant
Dr Hayhurst
Appellant
Dr Bowden
Appellant
Drs Morton & Partners
Appellant
Marco D'Ambrosi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Cape Town (van Zyl J and Traverso Djp)
Legal Issues
- 1 Should the award for loss of earnings incorporate a deduction for the lower cost of living in South Africa compared to London.
- 2 Is the respondent's compensation for future medical expenses limited to additional premiums paid to his medical aid due to chronic illness.
- 3 Should future increases in income be considered in the assessment of loss of future earnings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the respondent's loss of earning capacity should be measured by the difference between his likely earnings in London and his actual earnings in South Africa, the cost of living differential cannot be ignored. The evidence did not provide a precise quantification of the adjustment, but the court found it necessary to apply a further contingency deduction of 20% to the London earnings to achieve a fair award. The court rejected the appellants' argument that future medical expenses should be limited to additional premiums, confirming that medical aid payments are contractual and not deductible. The respondent's claim for future increases in income...
Court Disposition
Appeal succeeds in part; cross-appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Paragraph (b) of the order below is amended: (i) The value of the plaintiff's net past loss of earnings is the difference between GBP128,714 and ZAR791,835; (ii) The value of the plaintiff's claim for future loss of earnings is the difference between GBP578,884 and ZAR3,911,705; (iii) The exchange rate is that...
- Paragraph (c) of the order below is amended: Interest at the prescribed rate is payable by the defendants as follows: (i) on R1,189,253.09 (past hospital and medical expenses) from 17 March 2004 to 31 January 2008; (ii) on R400,000 (general damages) from 20 August 2007 to 31 January 2008; (iii) on expenditure...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment