Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v De La Guerre; South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (CCT 122/13 , CCT 123/13) [2014] ZACC 2; 2014 (3) SA 134 (CC); 2014 (4) BCLR 430 (CC) (20 February 2014)

Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v De La Guerre; South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (CCT 122/13 , CCT 123/13) [2014] ZACC 2; 2014 (3) SA 134 (CC); 2014 (4) BCLR 430 (CC) (20 February 2014)

The Constitutional Court held that the Contingency Fees Act is not unconstitutional, either as a whole or in respect of sections 2 and 4. The distinction made by the Legislature between legal practitioners and lay persons is rational, given practitioners' ethical duties and their role in litigation. The applicants failed to demonstrate any limitation of their clients' rights, and the application was not brought on behalf of affected clients. The rationality review argument does not warrant interference, and the reasonableness review is not applicable as no rights were shown to be limited. Consequently, there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2014] ZACC 2
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc; Respondent: Juanne Elize De La Guerre; Applicant: South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Case Number
CCT 122/13 , CCT 123/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal in both matters are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
Moseneke, Skweyiya, Cameron, Dambuza, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees Act, Rationality Review, Reasonableness Review, Access to Courts, Limitation of Rights
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contingency Fees Act Rationality Review Reasonableness Review Access to Courts Limitation of Rights

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc

Applicant

Juanne Elize De La Guerre

Respondent

South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 unconstitutional as a whole or in part?
  2. 2 Do sections 2 and 4 of the Contingency Fees Act unreasonably or unjustifiably limit rights under the Constitution?
  3. 3 Should leave to appeal be granted in light of prospects of success?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the Contingency Fees Act is not unconstitutional, either as a whole or in respect of sections 2 and 4. The distinction made by the Legislature between legal practitioners and lay persons is rational, given practitioners' ethical duties and their role in litigation. The applicants failed to demonstrate any limitation of their clients' rights, and the application was not brought on behalf of affected clients. The rationality review argument does not warrant interference, and the reasonableness review is not applicable as no rights were shown to be limited. Consequently, there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal in both matters are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal in matters CCT 122/13 and CCT 123/13 are dismissed with costs, including, where applicable, the costs of two counsel.