Brevis v Road Accident Fund (39035/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 725 (12 August 2024)

Brevis v Road Accident Fund (39035/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 725 (12 August 2024)

The court held that the RAF cannot be compelled to file a summary of its neurologist's expert opinion under Rule 36(9)(b) when no report exists and the RAF has elected not to call any expert witnesses. The application was brought under Rule 36(9), which only applies where a party intends to call an expert witness and has a summary to provide. The court declined to evaluate the RAF's obligations under Rule 36(8) in the absence of proper argument and given the application was not brought under that rule. Accordingly, the relief sought was not competent and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 725
Parties
Applicant: Rudi Granville Brevis; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2024
Case Number
39035/2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Expert Summary Under Rule 36(9)(b)
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court Rule 36, Expert Evidence, Medical Examination, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Rule 36 Expert Evidence Medical Examination Interlocutory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudi Granville Brevis

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Expert Summary Under Rule 36(9)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent can be compelled to file a summary of its neurologist's expert opinion under Rule 36(9)(b) when no report exists.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is under a positive obligation to obtain and file an expert report after arranging a medical examination.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought under Rule 36(9)(b) is competent in the absence of a report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the RAF cannot be compelled to file a summary of its neurologist's expert opinion under Rule 36(9)(b) when no report exists and the RAF has elected not to call any expert witnesses. The application was brought under Rule 36(9), which only applies where a party intends to call an expert witness and has a summary to provide. The court declined to evaluate the RAF's obligations under Rule 36(8) in the absence of proper argument and given the application was not brought under that rule. Accordingly, the relief sought was not competent and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.