Road Accident Fund v MKM obo KM and Another; Road Accident Fund v NM obo CM and Another (1102/2021) [2023] ZASCA 50; [2023] 2 All SA 613 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 516 (SCA) (13 April 2023)

Road Accident Fund v MKM obo KM and Another; Road Accident Fund v NM obo CM and Another (1102/2021) [2023] ZASCA 50; [2023] 2 All SA 613 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 516 (SCA) (13 April 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund is not obliged by statute to ensure that legal practitioners obtain judicial approval under section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act before entering into settlement agreements. The Contingency Fees Act governs the relationship between attorney and client, not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 50
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: MKM obo KM and TM; Respondent: NM obo CM and LM; Amicus Curiae: Centre for Child Law
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Case Number
1102/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court set aside and replaced with new orders.
Judges
Makgoka, Mothle, Hughes, Nhlangulela, Mali
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees Act, Settlement Agreements, Judicial Approval, Minor Children Claims, Attorney Fees Taxation
Civil Procedure Family and Children Contingency Fees Act Settlement Agreements Judicial Approval Minor Children Claims Attorney Fees Taxation

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

MKM obo KM and TM

Respondent

NM obo CM and LM

Respondent

Centre for Child Law

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund is obliged to ensure legal practitioners obtain judicial approval under section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act before entering into settlement agreements.
  2. 2 Whether settlement agreements concluded without judicial approval in terms of section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act are unlawful and invalid.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act by legal practitioners affects the validity of settlement agreements with the Road Accident Fund.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund is not obliged by statute to ensure that legal practitioners obtain judicial approval under section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act before entering into settlement agreements. The Contingency Fees Act governs the relationship between attorney and client, not between the Road Accident Fund and claimants. Non-compliance with section 4 renders the contingency fees agreement unenforceable as between attorney and client, but does not invalidate the underlying settlement agreement with the Road Accident Fund. The High Court erred in conflating the validity of the contingency fees agreement with the validity of the settlement agreement....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court set aside and replaced with new orders.

Orders

  • In both matters, the appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.
  • The contingency fees agreements entered into between Sonya Meistre Attorneys Incorporated and the first plaintiffs are declared invalid.