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
R.M obo V v Road Accident Fund (A40/2022; 2729/2018) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 50 (6 June 2025)
Appeal upheld in a Road Accident Fund claim for a minor’s future loss of earning capacity, after the High Court found the trial court erred on unpleaded issues and expert evidence.
Road Accident Fund v Advocate Botha N.O (4933/2021) [2024] ZAWCHC 403 (29 November 2024)
The court found that the Defendant failed to bring a substantive application for repudiation of the joint minute as required by both case management directives and binding authority. The application was irregular, procedurally defective, and lacking in substantive justification. The Defendant's reliance on Rule 36 was misplaced, as the notice served was non-compliant and the patient had already undergone multiple expert assessments. The court affirmed that joint minutes between experts are binding unless repudiation is properly and timeously raised and granted on good cause shown. The Defenda…
Source excerpt
du Preez N.O obo B.R.S v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 109 (12 February 2024)
The High Court held the Gauteng health department liable after a premature infant’s drip site went unchecked for ten hours, causing permanent injury.
J.A obo D.M.A v Member of Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (C.A.& R: 8/2021) [2022] ZAECBHC 1; [2022] 2 All SA 112 (ECB); 2022 (3) SA 475 (ECB) (21 January 2022)
The court found that the appellant's expert evidence, supported by joint minutes from radiologists, obstetricians, and geneticists, established on a balance of probabilities that DMA's brain injury was caused by prolonged partial hypoxic ischemia during labour, resulting from the respondent's negligent management of the birth process. The respondent's alternative theory of a neurometabolic disorder (NKH) was speculative, unsupported by the imaging evidence, and contradicted by joint expert opinions and uncontested facts. The trial court erred in treating the expert opinions as equally balance…
Source excerpt
M N v Minister of Police (A5051/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 274 (19 October 2020)
The court found that the trial judge had, during the course of the hearing and argument, clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with the agreements reached by the occupational therapists and industrial psychologists. The judge indicated that he was not bound by their opinions and invited the parties to adduce further evidence if they wished. The court held that the requirements laid down in Glen Mark Bee v Road Accident Fund were met, as the parties were alerted to the judge's dissatisfaction and given the opportunity to respond. The appellant's contention that a formal warning was required wa…
Source excerpt
PM v Road Accident Fund (5881/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 168 (19 September 2019)
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence, supported by expert reports and joint minutes, established that she is unemployable due to her physical limitations resulting from the accident. The defendant failed to rebut this evidence and did not repudiate the joint minute. The actuarial calculations for loss of earnings and the determination of general damages were accepted as reasonable and in line with statutory minimum wage and comparable case law. The plaintiff did not prove past medical expenses, but her claims for loss of earnings and general damages were substantiated. The court awar…
Source excerpt
Booyse and Another v MEC, For Health, Gauteng Province (16233/13) [2019] ZAGPPHC 363 (19 July 2019)
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that JJ was not in a permanent vegetative state prior to his death, based on expert evidence and video footage showing interaction and emotional responses. Therefore, JJ was entitled to general damages for pain and suffering. The interim payment of R1,500,000 was deemed fair and reasonable compensation for JJ's general damages. The plaintiffs were also entitled to compensation for past hospital, medical and related expenses, future counselling costs, and general damages for shock and trauma, as supported by joint minutes and expert evidence. T…
Source excerpt
Jacobs v The Road Accident Fund (4558/2012) [2019] ZAFSHC 42 (2 May 2019)
High Court RAF damages matter on quantum: the plaintiff proved past and future loss of income and medical expenses, while general damages were postponed.
Explore more
