Road Accident Fund v Skosana (A4/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 342 (29 July 2020)

Road Accident Fund v Skosana (A4/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 342 (29 July 2020)

The court held that the Fund had made a valid election under Regulation 3(3)(dA) by notifying the respondent's attorneys of its intention to appoint its own medical experts for a further assessment. The respondent's review application was therefore premised on an incorrect assumption. The relief sought by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 342
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Betty Mady Skosana
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Case Number
A4/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Review Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; costs order against the Fund set aside and replaced with an order that the respondent pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Ranchod, Mabuse, Collis
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Road Accident Fund Act, Review Under Paja, Serious Injury Assessment, Judicial Discretion on Costs
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs Award Road Accident Fund Act Review Under Paja Serious Injury Assessment Judicial Discretion on Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Betty Mady Skosana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund made a proper election under Regulation 3(3)(dA) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations, 2008.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to launch a review application under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the Fund was justified when the Fund was, in effect, the successful party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Fund had made a valid election under Regulation 3(3)(dA) by notifying the respondent's attorneys of its intention to appoint its own medical experts for a further assessment. The respondent's review application was therefore premised on an incorrect assumption. The relief sought by the respondent could not have been granted, and the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs applied. The court found no good grounds to depart from this rule, as the Fund's conduct did not warrant an adverse costs order. The costs order made by the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order that the respondent pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; costs order against the Fund set aside and replaced with an order that the respondent pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The costs order made by the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the order: 'The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.'