G. J. L and Another v Road Accident Fund (A118/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 232 (19 March 2025)

G. J. L and Another v Road Accident Fund (A118/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 232 (19 March 2025)

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo misdirected itself by disregarding unchallenged expert evidence that established a clear loss of earning capacity for the minor appellant. The correct approach is to compare the probable pre-injury and post-injury earning scenarios, applying appropriate contingency deductions (20% pre-injury, 30% post-injury) as supported by the evidence. The court a quo erred by awarding an arbitrary lump sum unrelated to the actuarial calculations and by requiring a level of certainty beyond the civil standard of proof. The evidence established a loss of R4,802,852.00 for future earnings and R67,818.14 for past medical expenses, which should have been awarded.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 232
Parties
Appellant: G. J. L; Appellant: L. L.; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
A118/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court, Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an award reflecting the actuarial calculations and contingency deductions.
Judges
Mbongwe, Millar, Mokoena
Legal Topics
Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Road Accident Fund Act, Assessment of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Road Accident Fund Act Assessment of Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. J. L

Appellant

L. L.

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court, Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct basis for calculating loss of earnings and earning capacity, including contingency deductions, for a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident?
  2. 2 Did the court a quo err in its approach to the assessment of expert evidence and the quantum of damages for future loss of income?
  3. 3 Should a lump sum or actuarial calculation be used in the circumstances of this case?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo misdirected itself by disregarding unchallenged expert evidence that established a clear loss of earning capacity for the minor appellant. The correct approach is to compare the probable pre-injury and post-injury earning scenarios, applying appropriate contingency deductions (20% pre-injury, 30% post-injury) as supported by the evidence. The court a quo erred by awarding an arbitrary lump sum unrelated to the actuarial calculations and by requiring a level of certainty beyond the civil standard of proof. The evidence established a loss of R4,802,852.00 for future earnings and R67,818.14 for past medical expenses, which should have been awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an award reflecting the actuarial calculations and contingency deductions.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including costs of counsel on scale B.
  • Paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo dated 15 June 2022 as amended on 31 August 2022 is set aside and replaced with: The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs a capital amount of R4,870,670.14, made up as follows: R4,802,852.00 in respect of loss of earnings; R67,818.14 in respect of past hospital and medical...