Road Accident Fund v Sarah Wilson Lewis

The respondent instituted a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in November 2006 in which her husband died. Over years of litigation, the parties appointed joint experts, including psychiatrists, psychologists and an industrial psychologist, who agreed that the respondent suffered a psychiatric injury causally linked to the accident. Based on this consensus, the RAF amended its plea in 2022 to admit liability for 100% of the respondent’s proven or agreed damages and settled certain heads of damages. Subsequently, after obtaining a new psychiatric opinion from Dr Khan in late 2022, the RAF sought to amend its plea to withdraw its admission, deny causation, and repudiate the expert agreements. The High Court refused the amendment and leave to appeal. Applications for leave to appeal and reinstatement before the SCA failed, leading to a reconsideration referral under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.

The application for reconsideration in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the strict approach of the SCA to condonation, reinstatement and compliance with procedural rules, particularly where litigants have already received exceptional indulgences. It underscores the binding nature of compromises, expert agreements and admissions in civil litigation, and clarifies that later expert disagreement does not constitute a common mistake of fact. The judgment is significant for RAF litigation and for principles governing withdrawal of admissions, finality of settlements, and procedural fairness.