Mertz v Road Accident Fund (A96/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 961 (2 December 2022)

Mertz v Road Accident Fund (A96/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 961 (2 December 2022)

The court found that the court a quo committed an irregularity by failing to afford the appellant's counsel an opportunity to address the reduction of general damages, breaching the audi alteram partem principle. The expert reports supporting serious injury were deemed admitted due to the respondent's failure to respond within the stipulated time, and the respondent's conduct amounted to acceptance of the serious injury assessment. The court a quo had jurisdiction to adjudicate general damages. The award of R2.5 million was inadequate given the severity of the injuries, permanent scarring, loss of amenities, and unemployability. Comparative awards supported a higher amount. The appeal was...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 961
Parties
Appellant: A.M.E. Mertz; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2022
Case Number
A96/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of senior counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an award of R3,500,000.00 for general damages.
Judges
S. Potterill, L.M. Molopa, T.P. Bokako
Legal Topics
General Damages, Serious Injury Assessment, Road Accident Fund Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Loss of Amenities, Quantification of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure General Damages Serious Injury Assessment Road Accident Fund Act Audi Alteram Partem Loss of Amenities Quantification 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.M.E. Mertz

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court on appeal can interfere with the discretion exercised by the court a quo regarding general damages.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo committed an irregularity by not affording the appellant's counsel an opportunity to address the issue of general damages.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo had jurisdiction to make any award in respect of general damages given the requirements for serious injury under the Road Accident Fund Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the court a quo committed an irregularity by failing to afford the appellant's counsel an opportunity to address the reduction of general damages, breaching the audi alteram partem principle. The expert reports supporting serious injury were deemed admitted due to the respondent's failure to respond within the stipulated time, and the respondent's conduct amounted to acceptance of the serious injury assessment. The court a quo had jurisdiction to adjudicate general damages. The award of R2.5 million was inadequate given the severity of the injuries, permanent scarring, loss of amenities, and unemployability. Comparative awards supported a higher amount. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of senior counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an award of R3,500,000.00 for general damages.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.
  • The defendant shall pay the total sum of R7,706,488.80 to the plaintiff's attorneys, Adams & Adams, in settlement of the plaintiff's action, calculated as follows: R1,437,006.80 for past medical expenses; R2,769,482.00 for past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity; R3,500,000.00 for general damages.