Road Accident Fund v Faria (567/2013) [2014] ZASCA 65; 2014 (6) SA 19 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 168 (SCA) (19 May 2014)

Road Accident Fund v Faria (567/2013) [2014] ZASCA 65; 2014 (6) SA 19 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 168 (SCA) (19 May 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund is not bound by the assessment of its own expert regarding the seriousness of an injury. The statutory scheme introduced by the Road Accident Fund Act and its Regulations requires that the Fund must be satisfied that the injury has been correctly assessed as serious before general damages can be awarded. The assessment of seriousness is an administrative function, and the prescribed procedure under Regulation 3 must be followed, including the possibility of rejection and referral to an appeal tribunal. The existence of a joint minute between experts does not entitle the court to bypass the statutory process. The high court erred...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Fonesca Rui Fernando Faria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2014
Case Number
567/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; high court's order awarding general damages set aside.
Judges
Maya, Shongwe, Willis, Van Zyl, Mocumie
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Serious Injury Assessment, General Damages, Administrative Decision, Regulation 3 Procedure
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Serious Injury Assessment General Damages Administrative Decision Regulation 3 Procedure

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Fonesca Rui Fernando Faria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund is bound by its own expert's assessment of 'serious injury'.
  2. 2 Whether the high court was competent to award general damages in the absence of RAF's satisfaction with the injury assessment.
  3. 3 Whether the statutory procedure under Regulation 3 must be followed even where experts from both sides agree on seriousness of injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund is not bound by the assessment of its own expert regarding the seriousness of an injury. The statutory scheme introduced by the Road Accident Fund Act and its Regulations requires that the Fund must be satisfied that the injury has been correctly assessed as serious before general damages can be awarded. The assessment of seriousness is an administrative function, and the prescribed procedure under Regulation 3 must be followed, including the possibility of rejection and referral to an appeal tribunal. The existence of a joint minute between experts does not entitle the court to bypass the statutory process. The high court erred...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; high court's order awarding general damages set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the high court that the Road Accident Fund is to pay the plaintiff the sum of R350 000 as general damages is set aside.