Dyongo v Road Accident Fund (2465/2021)
Dyongo v Road Accident Fund (2465/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 56 (4 May 2023)
The court found that the contingency fee agreements in both matters failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997. Specifically, the agreements were not entered into with the legal practitioner as required, but rather with the law firms as juristic persons. Furthermore, the agreements were not in the prescribed form and lacked proper judicial oversight prior to acceptance of settlement offers, as required by section 4 of the Act. The statutory provisions are peremptory, and any non-compliance renders the agreements invalid and unenforceable. Consequen…
Source excerpt
- Contingency Fees Act
- Invalid Contingency Fee Agreement
- Attorney Client Fees
- Judicial Oversight Of Settlement