Paixao and Another v Road Accident Fund (05692/10) [2011] ZAGPJHC 68 (1 July 2011)

Paixao and Another v Road Accident Fund (05692/10) [2011] ZAGPJHC 68 (1 July 2011)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a legally enforceable duty of support arising from their relationship with the deceased. The evidence showed that promises to support were made out of love and gratitude, not with the intention to create binding legal obligations. The law does not recognise a claim for loss of support based solely on a promise or agreement to support outside marriage, nor does it extend such claims to cohabitants or children not formally adopted. The court held that elevating such promises to enforceable rights would undermine the institution of marriage and open the floodgates to impractical claims. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 68
Parties
Plaintiff: Maria Angelina Santos Paixao; Plaintiff: Michelle Orlanda Santos Paixao; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2011
Case Number
05692/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' actions dismissed with costs.
Judges
RS Mathopo
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Cohabitation Rights, Contractual Duty of Support, Dependants Action, Road Accident Fund Act
Civil Procedure Family and Children Loss of Support Cohabitation Rights Contractual Duty of Support Dependants Action Road Accident Fund Act

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Angelina Santos Paixao

Plaintiff

Michelle Orlanda Santos Paixao

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cohabiting partner and her child, not formally adopted, can claim loss of support from the Road Accident Fund after the death of the breadwinner.
  2. 2 Whether a contractual promise to support, made within a permanent life partnership, creates a legally enforceable duty of support against third parties.
  3. 3 Whether the law recognises a dependant's claim for loss of support based solely on a promise or agreement to support outside marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a legally enforceable duty of support arising from their relationship with the deceased. The evidence showed that promises to support were made out of love and gratitude, not with the intention to create binding legal obligations. The law does not recognise a claim for loss of support based solely on a promise or agreement to support outside marriage, nor does it extend such claims to cohabitants or children not formally adopted. The court held that elevating such promises to enforceable rights would undermine the institution of marriage and open the floodgates to impractical claims. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' actions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The First and Second Plaintiffs’ actions are dismissed with costs.