Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Moss v Road Accident Fund (18326/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 110 (17 March 2025)
The High Court ordered the Road Accident Fund to pay a cyclist’s full past medical expenses, provide a section 17(4)(a) undertaking, and pay costs.
Road Accident Fund v Laubscher (2018/2013) [2020] ZANCHC 68 (11 September 2020)
The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to apply the agreed 20% apportionment to the damages and undertakings, erred in awarding costs for expert witnesses without proper argument, and incorrectly instructed a 0% contingency deduction for future uninjured earnings instead of the established 15%. The trial court also failed to order the appointment of a curator bonis to safeguard the respondent's award, contrary to expert consensus and persuasive authority. The costs order relating to the Rule 42 application was set aside, as neither party succeeded in correcting the errors and omi…
Source excerpt
Master Blaster (Pty) Ltd v Sasol Dyno (Pty) Ltd (8313/2004) [2020] ZAGPPHC 376; 2021 BIP 3 (GP) (26 May 2020)
The court held that exceptional circumstances justified departing from the usual costs rule after a withdrawn patent revocation application, and ordered the patentee to pay costs.
Dutton v Road Accident Fund (EL901/2016, ECD2201/2016) [2017] ZAECELLC 18 (18 October 2017)
The court held that Dr Schaefer’s qualifying expert fees were recoverable as party and party costs, even though his report was delivered after the defendant’s formal offer.
Levinthal N.O and Others v City of Cape Town Municipality and Another (21199/13) [2015] ZAWCHC 210 (28 October 2015)
Costs judgment after withdrawal of a PAJA review over building plan approval. The court held the applicants must pay the second respondent’s costs, including expert preparation fees.
Bekker and Another v Stewart N.O and Another (A263/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 210 (10 December 2014)
High Court appeal over costs in an insolvent-estate/Ponzi scheme recovery action. The court adjusted expert-witness costs and held the plaintiffs were entitled to costs.
Ligthelm v Road Accident Fund (40091/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 149 (25 March 2014)
The court found that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries resulting in significant impairment of her earning capacity and ongoing medical needs. Liability was settled in her favour, and the defendant conceded several heads of damages, including general damages and past medical expenses. The court accepted the uncontested expert evidence regarding the plaintiff's diminished future employability, early retirement, and the need for high post-accident contingencies. The actuarial calculations were accepted, and the court applied a conservative contingency deduction, resulting in a substantial a…
Source excerpt
Stewart NO and Another v Bekker and Others (2349/11, 3006/11, 3008/11) [2012] ZAFSHC 230 (4 December 2012)
The court held that the payments received by the defendants from the illegal pyramid scheme operated by the Minnes constituted dispositions without value under section 26 of the Insolvency Act. Applying the principles from Fourie v Edeling, the trustees were entitled to recover only the excess amounts received by the defendants over their original investments, not the invested capital itself. The plaintiffs' initial claims for the full amounts were incorrect and contributed to the protracted litigation. Both parties were found to have contributed to the drawn-out proceedings by failing to mak…
Source excerpt
Transnet Ltd. t/a Metrorail and Another v Witter (517/2007) [2008] ZASCA 95; 2008 (6) SA 549 (SCA) ; [2009] 1 All SA 164 (SCA) (16 September 2008)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the guard was negligent in failing to ensure the train doors were closed before departure, and the defendants were vicariously liable for this negligence. Alternatively, the defendants were negligent in not implementing procedures to prevent such incidents. The apportionment of damages by the trial court, reducing the plaintiff's damages by 50% for contributory negligence, was found to be just and equitable, and did not warrant interference on appeal. Regarding costs, the court clarified that while preparation fees for expert witnesses may be allowed on t…
Source excerpt
Ostling N.O v Road Accident Fund (656/07) [2008] ZAECHC 34 (6 May 2008)
The court held that an expert psychologist’s qualifying fees were recoverable as costs, even though he was ultimately not called to testify.
Explore more
