Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v De La Guerre; South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Two related applications challenged the constitutionality of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997. The South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers sought a declaration that the Act, or alternatively sections 2 and 4, were unconstitutional. Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc, a law firm, charged a former client, Ms De La Guerre, a contingency fee of 30% of her damages award, exceeding the statutory maximum of 25%. Ms De La Guerre challenged the excess fee in the High Court. Both matters were heard together. The High Court upheld the Act’s constitutionality and ruled in favour of Ms De La Guerre. Leave to appeal was refused by the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, leading to applications for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

The applications for leave to appeal in cases CCT 122/13 and CCT 123/13 were dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.

The case confirms the constitutionality of the Contingency Fees Act and clarifies that contingency fee agreements by legal practitioners are lawful only within the Act’s regulatory framework. It reinforces the distinction between rationality and reasonableness review in constitutional challenges and affirms judicial restraint in reviewing legislative policy choices.