|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2023 |
|
|
Court awards R6,525,683 for future loss of earning capacity, preferring expert evidence of chronic pain and employment truncation.
• Personal injury – future loss of earning capacity – proof of truncation of working life and residual earning capacity – assessment by comparison of pre- and post-morbid earning capacity.
• Expert evidence – joint minutes – weight to be accorded to agreed expert opinions; court may prefer one expert over another based on reasoning, investigation and consistency with facts.
• Application of Kerridge approach – increased contingency deduction where post-accident earning prospects are uncertain.
• Orthopaedic and psychological sequelae – chronic pain, Persistent Depressive Disorder and somatic symptom disorder as factors reducing employability.
• Costs – award of taxed party-and-party costs and setting aside of contingency fee agreement.
|
25 April 2023 |
|
The defendant negligently performed revisional antireflux surgery without necessary investigations or assistance, causing severe injury and damages.
Medical negligence – reoperative antireflux (redo Nissen) surgery – failure to trial conservative therapy and obtain up-to-date preoperative investigations – undertaking complex revisional laparoscopic surgery without specialist assistance – causation of massive intra‑operative haemorrhage and long‑term neurological sequelae; Expert evidence – compliance with Uniform Rule 36(9).
|
25 April 2023 |
|
Assessment of minor’s loss of earning capacity after severe brain injury; court prefers conservative actuarial inputs and applies 25%/35% contingencies.
Road Accident Fund – loss of earning capacity of a brain‑injured minor – actuarial computation of pre‑ and post‑morbid earnings – choice of earnings survey (Deloitte vs STATSSA) – weight of expert evidence (educational and industrial psychologists) – contingency discounts (25% pre‑morbid; 35% post‑morbid) – intervention and schooling considerations.
|
16 April 2023 |
|
Municipal sale of tender documents limited to printing costs and failure to post online not unlawful; rule nisi discharged.
Procurement law – municipal tender procedures – CIDB Standard permits charging tender‑document fees limited to actual printing costs and encourages online availability; failure to post online not per se unlawful; PFMA/Treasury instruments and National Treasury Guide generally do not apply to municipalities; administrative action under PAJA must still be lawful.
|
6 April 2023 |
|
Prospective examinees lack standing to set aside an ex parte s417/418 enquiry order; challenges are limited to subpoenas or review.
Companies Act ss417–418 — s417/s418 enquiry — ex parte order authorising enquiry — locus standi of prospective examinee — limited grounds to oppose (jurisdiction, hardship/oppression, exceptional circumstances) — subpoenas duces tecum — procedural remedies: intervention under Rule 6(4)(b) vs reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) — review as remedy to challenge commissioner’s ruling — costs.
|
4 April 2023 |
|
Causation from the collision established; unpleaded claim of intervening medical negligence rejected; defendant liable for loss of support and funeral expenses.
Delict – causation – application of "but for" test – skull base fracture from motor collision established as cause of death. Novus actus interveniens – substandard medical treatment – requirement to plead special plea; unpleaded defence cannot be raised at trial. Quantum – proof of deceased’s earnings and actuarial calculation of loss of support; no contingencies applied. Costs – successful plaintiffs awarded costs including specified expert and counsel fees and interest.
|
4 April 2023 |
|
Warrantless arrest without reasonable suspicion is unlawful; police liable for initial detention but not for court-ordered subsequent detention.
Criminal procedure – arrest without warrant – section 40(1)(b) – reasonable suspicion must be based on solid grounds, not mere conjecture. Unlawful arrest renders initial detention unlawful. Separation of powers – police duty to bring arrested person to court; charging and bail decisions rest with prosecutor and magistrate; police not liable for subsequent court-ordered detention absent wrongful conduct. Damages for deprivation of liberty: award for two days’ unlawful detention.
|
4 April 2023 |