Skinner v Road Accident Fund (2093/2012) [2014] ZAECPEHC 56 (19 August 2014)

Skinner v Road Accident Fund (2093/2012) [2014] ZAECPEHC 56 (19 August 2014)

The court found that the defendant's failure to investigate the plaintiff's claims regarding loss of earnings and earning potential was not justified, given the substantial sums claimed and the public interest involved. However, the interests of justice require that the matter be decided with all relevant evidence, including that of the defendant. The plaintiff complied with procedural requirements and cannot be faulted. Although the plaintiff will be prejudiced by the delay, the defendant and the public would be prejudiced if the matter proceeded without proper investigation. The postponement is granted, but not sine die, and the defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs, including...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 56
Parties
Plaintiff: Susan Elizabeth Skinner; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2014
Case Number
2093/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Application for Postponement of Trial on Quantum
Outcome
The trial is postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement, including qualifying expenses of experts.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Postponement of Trial, Rule 36 Expert Evidence, Costs Order, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Postponement of Trial Rule 36 Expert Evidence Costs Order Quantum of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Elizabeth Skinner

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Application for Postponement of Trial on Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has shown good cause for a postponement of the trial.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's failure to investigate the plaintiff's claims justifies a postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff or defendant will be prejudiced by the granting or refusal of the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's failure to investigate the plaintiff's claims regarding loss of earnings and earning potential was not justified, given the substantial sums claimed and the public interest involved. However, the interests of justice require that the matter be decided with all relevant evidence, including that of the defendant. The plaintiff complied with procedural requirements and cannot be faulted. Although the plaintiff will be prejudiced by the delay, the defendant and the public would be prejudiced if the matter proceeded without proper investigation. The postponement is granted, but not sine die, and the defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs, including...

Court Disposition

The trial is postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement, including qualifying expenses of experts.

Orders

  • The trial is postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar.
  • The Registrar is requested to give preference to this matter in allocating a new trial date.