Coughlan N O v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others

The appellant, Adv W S Coughlan N O, acting as curator for Mr Justin Rothney Daniels, pursued a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident on 19 November 2009. Mr Daniels alleged that he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury which led to the sudden onset of psychosis. To qualify for general damages under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1997, his injuries had to be assessed as ‘serious’. Two psychiatrists assessed Mr Daniels and concluded that he suffered a whole person impairment exceeding 30%, classifying the injury as serious. The RAF rejected this assessment based on a contrary report by a neurosurgeon, Dr Kieck, who attributed Mr Daniels’ psychosis to substance abuse rather than the accident. A dispute was referred to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) Tribunal. After multiple tribunals were constituted irregularly and contrary to court orders, the final Tribunal found the injuries to be non-serious, relying heavily on Dr Kieck’s opinion and making findings on causation. The appellant unsuccessfully reviewed this decision in the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court order was set aside and substituted with an order reviewing and setting aside the Tribunal’s decision that Mr Daniels’ injuries were not serious. The matter was referred back to a properly constituted Tribunal comprising three psychiatrists and/or three psychiatrists and a clinical neuropsychologist to determine seriousness of the injury. The issue of causation was directed to be determined in the pending action proceedings. The HPCSA, its Registrar, and the RAF were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs jointly and severally.

This judgment reinforces the strict limits on the powers of the Road Accident Fund Tribunal and safeguards claimants’ access to courts on issues of causation. It clarifies that tribunals may not conflate seriousness of injury with causality and may not usurp a judicial function. The decision strengthens administrative-law oversight of RAF processes and ensures compliance with prior court orders regarding tribunal composition and mandate.