This blog is co-authored by Mishka Maharaj, a candidate attorney.
The importance of appointing appropriate medical experts to provide evidence in medical malpractice disputes was highlighted in this April 2025 High Court judgment.
A patient claimed damages from an orthopaedic surgeon arising from the surgeon advocating for and performing a surgical procedure to his right
In a recent April 2025 case, the court examined the liability of the defendants for injuries sustained by the plaintiff after falling into an open stormwater drain. The court concluded that the defendants’ conduct was wrongful and negligent, and that the defendant, the Johannesburg Municipality and Johannesburg Road Agency were liable for 50% of the
In a March 2025 Judgment, the High Court addressed the issue of whether the Eastern Cape Department of Health could satisfy a final court order for the payment of damages in instalments instead of a lump sum. The court found that the defendant cannot satisfy a court order in periodic payments.
The plaintiff, BN, acting
In the June 2021 judgement of Chantell Martin v Road Accident Fund, the court decided that gratuitous or benevolent payments, received by an injured claimant from her husband, should not be taken into account in the calculation of that person’s damages for loss of earnings.
The accident occurred in 2015, and the RAF had
This November 2021 Constitutional Court judgment contains a useful review and analysis of when it is appropriate to award constitutional damages.
In terms of section 38 of the Constitution, a court may award damages for a violation of rights in the Bill of Rights.
Section 38 refers to the granting of “appropriate relief”.
In a landmark judgment, the Constitutional Court has left the door open for the development of the common law to have future damages in personal injury claims paid periodically and by way of services.
The Constitutional Court was faced with the question whether massive future medical expenses based on speculation can be paid by
A person who claims for damages sustained as a result of injuries negligently caused by someone else has a single, indivisible cause of action and must sue for all damages in one claim.
This proposition was reasserted in the context of a prescription allegation regarding a Road Accident Fund Act claim.
The RAF Act only
The claim for damages for abuse of rights must establish that the defendant exercised a right solely or predominately with the motive of harming another person and without advancing a significant interest of their own. If the person allegedly causing the harm was seeking to advance a reasonable interest of their own, a bad motive
Whether a municipality is required to act so as to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm and, if so, what steps it is required to take to prevent harm, depends what can be reasonably expected in the circumstances of each case. Undue demands cannot be placed on public authorities and functionaries. Their resources and the manner in
The law allows an innocent party to cancel a contract where the counter-party has wrongfully repudiated a contract, and then to claim damages.
In calculating the damages, however, events following repudiation must be taken into account where the events would have reduced the value of performance, even without a breach, had the contract continued in