Smit v Road Accident Fund

The applicant, Peter John Smit, sustained bodily injuries in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 23 October 2019 in Goodwood, Western Cape. His injuries included a flexion-extension injury to the cervical spine, a flexion-extension injury to the lower lumbar spine, and compression of a left-sided nerve from an L3/4 disc herniation. The applicant claimed damages totaling R1,660,847.00, comprising past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings, and general damages. The respondent, the Road Accident Fund (RAF), admitted that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of its insured driver and settled the merits on a 100% basis. The applicant brought an interlocutory application in terms of Uniform Rule 34A seeking an interim payment toward past medical expenses, past loss of earnings, and an undertaking for future medical expenses.

• Whether the respondent's admission of the insured driver's negligence constitutes an admission of liability for the purposes of an interim payment under Rule 34A
• Whether the applicant is entitled to claim past medical and hospital expenses from the RAF when a medical aid scheme may be obligated to cover those expenses under the Medical Schemes Act, 1998
• Whether the existence of an outstanding or undetermined Workmen's Compensation Commission award precludes an interim payment order being granted
• Whether a punitive costs order is warranted where the RAF advances arguments contrary to established legal precedent and fails to comply with court directives

The application was granted. The RAF was ordered to pay R53,312.98 for past hospital and medical expenses, R11,596.00 for past loss of income, and to provide an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the RAF Act. The WCC was ordered to furnish a full calculation of its award. The matter was referred to judicial case management for an expedited determination of trial readiness. Costs were awarded on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of the postponement on 27 August 2024.

1. Where the Road Accident Fund has in its plea admitted that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of its insured driver, this constitutes a sufficient admission of liability to satisfy the requirements for an interim payment under Uniform Rule 34A. 2. Past medical and hospital expenses may be claimed from the RAF as a collateral benefit (res inter alios acta) and are not excluded merely because a medical aid scheme may also be obligated to cover such expenses. 3. An interim payment under Rule 34A may be granted even where a Workmen's Compensation Commission award is not yet fully determined, because Rule 34(10) allows the trial court to make appropriate adjustments at a later stage.

The court expressed strong disapproval of the RAF's conduct, stating that the RAF was 'flagrantly disregarding court decisions' and acting contrary to its constitutional mandate. Parker AJ questioned how long and at whose expense the RAF would continue to shirk its mandate, and raised concerns about the ethical position of RAF legal representatives who take instructions that conflict with their duty as officers of the court. The court noted that the RAF's internal directive had been declared ultra vires and that the RAF continued to waste public funds by persisting with arguments already rejected by appellate courts.

This judgment reinforces the binding effect of the Discovery Health line of cases, confirming that the RAF cannot rely on the Medical Schemes Act or on internal directives to avoid paying past medical expenses. It affirms that an admission of negligence in a plea constitutes a sufficient admission of liability for Rule 34A interim payment purposes. The case is also significant for its strong judicial rebuke of the RAF's continued reliance on arguments that have been rejected by higher courts, and for the imposition of punitive costs to deter such conduct.