Van Rooyen NO v Road Accident Fund (66684/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 52 (9 February 2016)

Van Rooyen NO v Road Accident Fund (66684/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 52 (9 February 2016)

The court found that the joint minutes and expert reports, which were accepted by both parties, established that Steven Joubert would have qualified as an artisan, most likely an electrician, and had a future in the open labour market. The concerns raised by the defendant's expert regarding pre-morbid behaviour were addressed and allayed by affidavits and supporting evidence. The court held that contingency deductions must be based on the proven factual situation rather than arbitrary adjustments. After considering the expert evidence, previous case law, and arguments by counsel, the court determined that a 5% pre-morbid and 20% post-morbid contingency deduction was appropriate. The...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 52
Parties
Plaintiff: Adv Maryke van Rooyen N.O. (obo Steven Joubert); Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2016
Case Number
66684/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for loss of income and earning capacity upheld with contingency deductions of 5% pre-morbid and 20% post-morbid; quantum to be determined by actuarial calculation and paid into the Steven Joubert Trust.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Curator Ad Litem, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Curator Ad Litem 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adv Maryke van Rooyen N.O. (obo Steven Joubert)

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's claim for loss of income and earning capacity?
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff's pre-morbid behavioural history sufficiently addressed to affect the quantum?
  3. 3 Should the actuarial calculations be based on the joint minutes and expert consensus?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the joint minutes and expert reports, which were accepted by both parties, established that Steven Joubert would have qualified as an artisan, most likely an electrician, and had a future in the open labour market. The concerns raised by the defendant's expert regarding pre-morbid behaviour were addressed and allayed by affidavits and supporting evidence. The court held that contingency deductions must be based on the proven factual situation rather than arbitrary adjustments. After considering the expert evidence, previous case law, and arguments by counsel, the court determined that a 5% pre-morbid and 20% post-morbid contingency deduction was appropriate. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for loss of income and earning capacity upheld with contingency deductions of 5% pre-morbid and 20% post-morbid; quantum to be determined by actuarial calculation and paid into the Steven Joubert Trust.

Orders

  • Contingencies to be applied are 5% pre-morbid and 20% post-morbid.
  • Advocates East and Barn may approach the judge in chambers with actuarial calculations for an order sounding in money.