Related documents
- Is commenced by Contingency Fees Act, 1997: Commencement
Loading PDF...
This document is 1.7 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
23 April 1999
Commenced by
Contingency Fees Act, 1997: Commencement
21 November 1997 this version
13 November 1997
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 78
Judgment
50|
Reported
The Contingency Fees Act (and its sections 2 and 4) was not shown to be unconstitutional; leave to appeal dismissed.
Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 — constitutionality — rationality review for general legislative challenge — section 36 limitations enquiry where fundamental rights (access to courts) alleged — legislative distinction between regulation of legal practitioners and lay funders rational given lawyers' role and ethical duties — applicants lacked evidence of clients' rights limitation and representative standing.
|
|
Reported
Third‑party litigation funding is not automatically champertous or a defence, though funded suits may be restrained if they abuse court process.
* Civil procedure – third‑party litigation funding / pacta de quota litis – whether champerty contrary to public policy; interplay with Contingency Fees Act and constitutional right of access to courts.
* Illegality of financing agreement – not a defence to the underlying action between plaintiff and defendant.
* Abuse of process – funded litigation may be restrained where not bona fide; courts retain supervisory power to protect judicial integrity.
* Costs – punitive costs and refusal to allow attorney’s perusal fee for frivolous supplementation of record.
|
|
Reported
Prescription runs from knowing the material facts (fee deductions), not from later knowledge of legal invalidity.
Prescription — s 12(3) Prescription Act — prescription begins when creditor has facts from which debt arises; knowledge of legal invalidity unnecessary; cause of action arose on payment/deduction of fees; contingency-fee agreements — non‑compliance with Contingency Fees Act renders agreement invalid but legal conclusion not required for prescription to run.
|
|
Reported
Whether a court‑appointed curator may be paid a percentage of recoveries consistent with a court order requiring fees 'in accordance with' attorneys’ norms.
Pension funds — Curatorship — Curator remuneration — Whether a contingency/percentage‑of‑recovery fee complies with court order requiring remuneration ‘in accordance with the norms of the attorneys’ profession’ — Contingency fees not per se unlawful; Contingency Fees Act applies to litigation — PAJA and administrative‑action review not applicable to court‑appointed curator/FSB fee agreement — Locus standi under s 38 Constitution and s 5(8) FI Act.
|
|
The appellant’s bid to allow pay‑as‑you‑go future medical expenses and exclude them from contingency fees was refused.
Delict – damages – ‘once and for all’ rule – future medical expenses – whether common law should be developed under s 39(2) of the Constitution to permit pay‑as‑you‑go payments; Constitutional rights – s 27 (access to health care), s 28 (children’s rights) – burden of proof when invoking constitutional development; Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 – contingency fees calculated by reference to total amount recovered – courts lack power to exclude future medical expense awards from contingency fee calculations; law reform is primarily for the Legislature.
|
|
Bobroff and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (194/20) [2021] ZASCA 56 (3 May 2021)
Reported
POCA permits forfeiture of foreign-held proceeds of crime; ICCM Act supports enforcement, and NDPP proved most but not all funds were tainted.
POCA – chapter 6 forfeiture – extraterritorial reach – definition of "proceeds of unlawful activities" includes property derived directly or indirectly, including appreciation and property representing proceeds – ICCM Act s19 enables international enforcement assistance – evidentiary standard: balance of probabilities – proportionality and constitutional limits on forfeiture.
|
|
RAF must pay past medical expenses despite medical aid payments; internal directive refusing reimbursement unlawful.
* Road Accident Fund – liability for past medical expenses – payments by medical aid schemes are collateral and do not reduce RAF liability (res inter alios acta).
* Administrative action – RAF internal directive (Aug 2022) refusing reimbursement unlawful and inconsistent with s17 of the RAF Act.
* Civil damages – computation of patrimonial loss in RAF claims – medical scheme indemnification disregarded.
|
|
A court may not rewrite a consensual settlement, make orders against non-parties, or invalidate settlements for practitioner-client fee issues without severability analysis.
Settlement agreements – consent order – court must give effect to parties' agreement; contingency fee agreements – bilateral between practitioner and client; illegality of contingency fee does not necessarily void settlement; court may not make orders against non-parties or amend consensual terms; costs consequences for unnecessary state legal attendance.
|
|
A plaintiff may recover past medical expenses from the RAF despite medical aid payments; late unpleaded subrogation and statutory-defence arguments dismissed.
Road Accident Fund liability – section 17 RAF Act – recovery of past medical expenses despite medical aid payments; subrogation – insurer’s subrogation collateral and not a defence to RAF liability; Medical Schemes Act Regulations 7 & 8 and s19(d)(i) RAF Act – do not exclude RAF liability; pleading rules – late unpleaded defences disallowed; costs – plaintiff awarded taxed or agreed costs.
|
|
Reported
Court develops common law to allow public‑sector care or pay‑as‑you‑go remedies for medical negligence, assessing public services at a reasonable standard.
Medical negligence — development of common law — public healthcare remedy and undertaking to pay (DZ defences) — evidentiary onus on State pleadings — reasonable standard for public provision — case management, annexe‑based delivery and periodic/private procurement or reimbursement — protection of constitutional rights (s 27, s 28) and public finance considerations.
|
Gazette
24Act
2|
Finance and Money
|
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
|
Journal
1|
Labour Law — Journals
|