This blog is co-authored by Sanjana Kapoor, a candidate attorney.
In January 2026 the High Court dealt with the quantum of the claimant’s damages after the parties had already agreed the merits. The case concerned damages following a motorcycle collision, including past medical expenses and future loss of earnings / earning capacity. The court held that where a claimant who says an accident ended a likely professional sports career must prove that career path. A court will not award damages on a “sports star” earnings basis where the facts and documents do not support it.
The claimant’s damages case on future earnings was presented on two alternative “scenarios” built from expert material: a “rugby scenario” (engineering studies plus a period of professional rugby), and an “engineering scenario” (engineering studies without professional rugby). The industrial psychologist proposed a 70–80% probability for the rugby scenario and applied contingencies, which fed into the actuarial calculations. On that approach, the claimant contended for a much higher net figure on the rugby scenario, while the engineering scenario produced a lower net outcome.
The court did not accept that the claimant had proved the rugby scenario. A key reason was that the evidence left important questions unanswered about what actually happened to the claimant’s bursary and rugby prospects, and why he left his university programme early. The court highlighted inconsistencies between his testimony and what appeared in the expert reports about dates and the claimant’s status at the university during 2021. It also scrutinised the bursary/rugby contract itself, noting unusual features (including signature issues) and pointing to suspensive conditions and termination provisions that made it necessary to establish, on evidence, whether the claimant left voluntarily, gave notice, was terminated for non-performance, or faced consequences under the contract. In short, the court found a “dearth of evidence” on the crucial point: the true reason for the claimant’s departure and loss of the alleged rugby pathway.
Because that foundation was missing, the court was not persuaded that compensation should be calculated on the rugby scenario where the claimant argued a net award of R6 348 349. Instead, it accepted the actuarial calculations under the engineering scenario and made an award for future loss of earnings / earning capacity on that basis.
This judgment highlights that where future earnings depend on a specialised trajectory (like professional sport), the claimant must put up clear, consistent, well-supported evidence that the trajectory was probable, and why it was lost. All surrounding factors should be considered alongside expert evidence to determine the likelihood of scenarios involving a claim for loss of earning capacity.
Groenewald v Road Accident Fund