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
Benade and Another v Metsimaholo Hospital and Others (86/2013) [2020] ZAFSHC 67 (3 February 2020)
Costs judgment in a medical negligence case: the court awarded High Court-scale costs, limited the second plaintiff’s costs to settlement date, and included expert and wasted costs.
Road Accident Fund v van Schoor (1801/2016) [2019] ZAECPEHC 58 (17 September 2019)
The High Court reconsidered costs under Rule 34 after a Road Accident Fund settlement offer exceeded the judgment amount and shifted later costs to the plaintiff.
University of South Africa v Mothata (68225/12) [2016] ZAGPPHC 317 (10 May 2016)
The court found that the defendant made a substantial offer to settle the plaintiff's claim, which was significantly higher than the amount ultimately awarded to the plaintiff. In line with Rule 34 and the principles set out in Naylor v Jansen, the court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs from the date of the offer. The purpose of Rule 34 is to encourage settlement and avoid unnecessary litigation, and the court found no reason to depart from the usual approach. The costs order includes all costs incurred from the date the offer was filed with the Reg…
Source excerpt
Visser v Visser (15088/2009) [2012] ZAKZDHC 16; 2012 (4) SA 74 (KZD) (29 March 2012)
A child’s dog-bite damages claim succeeded, with the court awarding past and future medical expenses, general damages, interest, and costs.
Multilateral Motorvoertuigongelukkefonds v Van Wyk (269/97) [1998] ZASCA 110 (27 November 1998)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to testify, especially given his prior sworn statement describing the accident. The evidence of Bosman and Williams was irreconcilable, and the trial court correctly preferred Williams's version, finding both parties negligent. The respondent was found to have contributed to the accident by crossing the road at a dangerous time, and the trial court's apportionment of 60% negligence to the respondent was upheld. Regarding costs, the late Rule 34 offer did not justify in…
Source excerpt
Explore more
