Steyn v Ronald Bobroff & Partners

The appellant instructed the respondent firm of attorneys to prosecute a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim on behalf of her minor son for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Three written mandates were concluded authorising the respondent to investigate, lodge and prosecute the claim. The claim was lodged with the RAF approximately seven months after it allegedly could have been, summons was issued several months later, and the matter ultimately went to trial in February 2010, resulting in a substantial damages award. The appellant terminated the respondent’s mandate shortly before trial and later sued the respondent for damages, alleging that a 14‑month delay in finalising the RAF claim constituted a breach of mandate and caused her to lose interest she could have earned on the damages award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the standard of care expected of attorneys in South Africa, confirms that professional negligence claims arising from mandates are generally contractual, and emphasises the need for expert evidence to establish breach of professional standards. It also limits claims for lost interest as damages where no debtor‑creditor relationship exists.