Rae v Road Accident Fund (3473/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 (9 February 2022)

Rae v Road Accident Fund (3473/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 (9 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The court also identified and corrected an error in the draft order regarding the percentage deduction from the plaintiff's claim, amending it from 'less 75%' to 'less 25%' in accordance with Rule 42(1)(b).

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 119
Parties
Applicant: A. Rae; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2022
Case Number
3473/20
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. The draft order is amended to reflect a deduction of less 25% from the plaintiff's proven or agreed claim. No order as to costs.
Judges
ENB Khwinana
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Variation of Order, Rule 42, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Variation of Order Rule 42 Prospects of Success

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Rae

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment of 27 September 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the draft order should be varied to correct the percentage deduction from the plaintiff's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The court also identified and corrected an error in the draft order regarding the percentage deduction from the plaintiff's claim, amending it from 'less 75%' to 'less 25%' in accordance with Rule 42(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. The draft order is amended to reflect a deduction of less 25% from the plaintiff's proven or agreed claim. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The draft order is amended and marked X to read less 25%.