A March 2025 judgment of the high court addressed the issue of interim payment for past medical expenses and whether the defendant’s admission of negligence constituted admission of liability. The court found that the defendant had not admitted liability for damages and dismissed the application for an interim payment.

The claimant had filed an application for an interim payment for past medical expenses following a motor vehicle accident. The claimant argued that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) had admitted negligence and that the interim payment was necessary to cover substantial medical expenses incurred. The RAF opposed the application, arguing that it had not admitted liability for damages.

The claimant relied on Section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act and Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court, which allow for interim payments in cases of personal injury if the defendant has in writing admitted liability for the claimant’s damages.

The court’s analysis focused on the wording of the RAF’s offer, which explicitly stated that the admission of negligence was limited to the manner in which the collision occurred and did not constitute an admission of liability for damages. The court also considered previous case law, which emphasised the need for a clear and unequivocal admission of liability for damages before an interim payment can be granted.

The court concluded that the RAF had not admitted liability for damages and that the claimant had not met the requirements for an interim payment under Rule 34A. The court dismissed the application for an interim payment, noting that the claimant would need to prove the damages at trial. The decision underscores the importance of clear and unequivocal admissions n court proceedings.

Tshetlanyane v Road Accident Fund (2022/036615) [2025] ZAGPJHC 211 (6 March 2025)