SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable / Not reportabl e
CASE No.: 2399/2017
In the matter between:
N[...] G [...] M[...] obo R [...] V [...] M[...] PLAINTIFF
And
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: FREE STATE PROVINCE DEFENDANT
Coram: Van Rhyn J
Heard: 3 December 2024
Delivered: 14 January 2025
Summary: Delictual damages - medical negligence - damages ensuing as a
result of hypoxic brain injury - cerebral palsy - contingency deduction
percentage applied to claim for loss of earnings - normal between 15% and 20%
- no reason to deviate from the normal contingency deduction.
ORDER
1. The Defendant is order ed to pay the Plaintif f, in her repres entative capa city,
the amount of R635 740.00 (SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY -FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND FORTY RAND) in full and final settlement of t he Pl aintiff’ s cla im fo r loss of
earning s.
2
2. Insofar as the Defendant fails to make the payment as ordered in parag raph
1 supra, within a period of 30 days from date of the order, the Defendant is
ordered to pay interest to the Plaintiff on the amoun t payable, at the prescribe d
interest rate per annum, a tempore mora e, calculated from the 31st day after
judgment to the date of final payment , both days inclu ded.
3. The Plain tiff’s attorney of record is authorised to cause to be created, within 6
(SIX) mont hs of the date of this order , a trust to be established in accordanc e with
the Trust Property Control Act No 57 of 1988, and, if it is not created within 6 (six)
months to approach this Court or a Judge in chambe rs (as directed by the Judge
President or Deputy Judge President) for a further direction or extension of time,
which trust: -
3.1 shall be created in accordan ce with the draft trust deed, and
shall contain the provisio ns set out therei n, a copy of which is annex ed
hereto as “A”;
3.2 shall have as its trustee MARIA MAGDAL ENA ROBB ERTSE with
the powers and duti es as set out in the af oresaid trust deed.
4. The trustee shall: -
4.1 Be entitled in the execution of their duties and fiduciary
respo nsibilities
towards the of the trust, to have the attorney and client costs and
disbursem ents of Plaintif f’s attorneys taxed, unless agreed; and
4.2 Be obliged to render security to the satisfact ion of the Master of the
High Court.
4.3 Be entitled and obliged to take all neces sary steps to recover any
mone y, paid by the Defendant flowing from this action, paid over to any
other trust registered for the benefit of the mino r, and to deman d full
3
accounting from a ny such trust.
5. The Plaintiff’s attorneys of record:
5.1 Are authorised, pending the creation and registration of the trust, to
invest the award less such fees and/or costs to which they are entitled, in an
interest-bearing account in terms of section 86(4) of the Legal Practice Act,
Act 28 of 2014, and to make payment of any reasonab le expense or
disbursement for the benefit of the minor child as a trustee would have been
able to do should such expenditure or disbursem ent be regarded as
reasonably necessary;
5.2 Shall account fully to the trustee appointed, of all costs,
fees, expenditure and/or disbursements paid from the award once t he trust
had been r egistered and the ba lance of the award paid over.
6. The Defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs of suit, to
date, insofar as it relates to loss of earnings, on the High Court scale, such costs to
include the f ollowin g:
6.1 Insofar as not paid in terms of any previ ous order or settlement, the
reasonable costs attendant upon theobtaining of medico-legal reports and/or
addendu m reports and/or joint minutes, if any, of the followin g expert
witnesses in terms where of expert notices w ere filed:
6.1.1 Dr J Bro oks (Life Exp ectancy);
6.1.2 M Net havh ani & Laa uwen (Educational Psycholog ists)
6.1.3 L Marais (I ndustrial Psychologist);
6.1.4 Catherine Rice (Occ upational Therap ist)
4
6.1.5 Munroe Actuaries.
6.2 Thecosts attendant upon theappo intmentof senior counsel Myburgh
SC, including his reasonable fees for preparati on, drafting of the
opening subm issions and heads of argument, as well as his
reasonable day fee f or 3 December 2024, to b e taxed on scale C.
6.3 The costs of attorneys, to date of this order, which shall, subject to
the discretion of the taxing master, include necessary travelling costs and
expenses incurred on behalf of the Plaintiff, preparation for trial and
expenses, preparation for trial and attendance at court on 3 December
2024.
6.4 The reasonable costs incurred by and on behalf of the Plaintiff in as
well as the costs consequent to attending the medic o-legal
examinations of the educational psychologist s, industrial psychol ogists and/ or
life expectancy expert s.
6.5 The cos ts con sequent to the plaintiff ’s trial bundl es being prepared.
6.6 The costs of round table meetings between Myburgh SC and Dodson
SC.
6.7 The costs of and consequent of the holdi ng of all expert meetings
between the Life expectan cy experts and i ndustrial psychologist s.
7. The defendant shall pay interest on the above taxed or agreed costs of suit
at the prescribe d statutory rate calcul ated fr om 31 ( THIRTY- ONE) days after
agreement in respect thereof, or from the date of affixing of the taxing
master’s allocatur, to date of payment .
8. Any costs incurred by the Plaintiff’s previous attorney of record, insofar as it
5
relates to loss of earnings, are reserved.
9. Plaintiff’s counsel declared that there is no contingency fee ag reement.
10. Any payment due in terms of this order shall be paid into the following trust
account
:
WERNER BOSHOFF INC.
Standard Bank Lynn wood Ridge
Account Number: 0 […]
Bran ch Code: 0 12-445
REF: MAT163 2
JUDGMENT
[1] The plaintiff, N […] G[…] M[…], in her capacity as mother and guardian of the
minor, R […] V[…] M[…], instituted action on 16 May 2017 against the defendant, the
Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health of the Free State
Province, for damages following the birth of the minor. The plaintiff claimed that the
defendant, through its agents and/or personnel at the Botshabelo Hospital, under the
jurisdiction of the defendant, negligently caused the minor to suffer from cerebral
palsy.
[2] The defendant has conceded liability on the merits . The claim for general
damages has been settled and payment in the amount of R1.9 million has been
made on 23 March 2021. An agreement has been reached and payment of a lump
sum in the amount of R724 199.24 has been made in respect of cost of acquisition of
a house to accom modate the minor’s disability. As such, the quantification of the
remaining damages, being loss of earning capacity and future medical expenditure suffered by the plaintiff coupled wi th the public health remedy and undertaking to pay
6
remedy, raised by the defendant, constitutes the only remaining issues between the
parties. At the commencement of the hearing of this matter, the parties proposed that the plaintiff’s claims for loss of earning capacity be separated from the remaining issues in terms of the provisions of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court and that the remaining issues be postponed to the pre -trial roll.
[3] Therefore, the following rulings were made:
1. In terms of the provisions of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court
the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earning capacity is separated from the
remaining issues.
2. The remaining issues are postponed to the judicial pre- trial roll of
Monday, 20 January 2025.
[4] The parties accept that there is a dispute regarding the life expectancy of the
minor. To circumvent the need to call such experts and having regard to the small difference in the respective opinions, the plaintiff accepts the correctness of the life
expectancy as opined by the defendant’s expert. The parties furthermore handed up a joint submission seeking a further ruling admitting the expert reports and joint minutes into evidence. Consequently, the following ruling was made that:
1. the joint minute of the industrial psychologists ;
2. the reports of the industrial psychologists;
3. the joint minute of the life expectancy experts;
4. the reports of the educational psychologists ;
7
are admitted into evidence in terms of s 3(1) (a) of the Law of Evidence Amendment
Act 45 of 1988 and that these documents be relied upon for purposes of
determination of the contingency deduction to be applied to the quantum in respect
of the loss of earning capacity for the minor on the basis set out in the joint
submission . The agreements reached in the joint minute of the industrial
psychologists to prevail over their reports and those of the educational ps ychologists
where there is any conflict.
[5] Following the rulings made at the hearing of the matter the only rem aining
issue to be adjudicated upon is the appropriate contingency deduction to be applied
to the minor’s premorbid earnings. The plaintiff was admitted to hospital for the birth of her baby on 8 September 2009. The plaintiff gave birth on 9 September 2009. As a result of the negligence of the defendant ’s employees the minor suffered a total
and permanent impairment of the brain. In the joint minute of the life expectancy experts , Profe ssor P Cooper and Dr J Brooks dated 15 November 2024, the minor’s
condition is described as: ‘
severe quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She is immobile, has no
functional hand use, is nonverbal, has severe intellectual disability, and a severe visual
impairment. Her gross motor impairment is the most severe category as she cannot
consistently lift her head in the prone position’ . The minor, since birth, has manifested
with specific symptoms related to birth asphyxia i e cerebral palsy.
[6] The Industrial Psychologists, Lance Marais and Mark Peverett (joint minute
dated 25 to 28 November 2024) agreed that the minor has been ‘rendered
uneducable, untrainable and unemployable, due to the incident that occurred leaving the
minor [with] cerebral palsy requiring a full -time care giver.’ It is agreed by the Industrial
Psychologists that it is generally known that children equal or obtain higher
qualifications than their parents, which would probably have been the case with the
minor. The calculation of the minor’s loss of earning capacity is based upon the
agreement reached between the Industrial Psychologists hav ing agreed that the
following factors should be taken into account as the basis for computation:
(a) the minor’s life expectancy is until the age of 31.1 years;
8
(b) as a result of her injuries, she is unemployable;
(c) the minor would have attained a National Senior Certificate (NSC)
(NQF level 4) in 2027(at age18);
(d) the minor would have obtained a tertiary qualification (NQF level 5) in
2009 if she had met the entry requirements of the tertiary institution as well as securing NFSAS funding.
(e) tertiary education was a possibility rather than a probability and
employment would be based on obtaining a Grade 12 level of education;
(f) the minor would have secured employment in the formal labour market
after a period of two to five years;
(g) earnings per annum should be based on a grade 12 level of education,
using the Quantum Yearbook 2024, in the median quartile, which gives
R84 000, R169 000 and R247 000 for the ages younger than 25, between the
ages 25 and 44 and the ages 45 and older respectively;
(h) post matric, it would take two to five years to secure employment in the
formal labour market;
(i) the unemployment rates are exceptionally high in south Africa. In the
Eastern Cape where the minor and her family reside, the total unemployment rate for the Black African group is 42% with far higher scales of unemployment indicated for the ages 15 to 34, sourced from Stats SA Quarterly Labour Force Survey 3
rd Quarter 2024:
Age 15- 19: 82%
Age 20- 24: 62%
9
Age 25- 29: 52%
Age 30- 34: 51%
[7] The plaintiff contends that a 15% contingency deduction is fair having regard
to all the circumstances of the matter and based upon case law where the courts
have applied contingency percentages of 15% in matters where the injured persons became entirely unemployable or had suffered mental retardation and permanent impairment.
1 The usual adversities of life i.e., economic downturn, retrenchment,
accidents and illness, are possibilities that could interrupt or impede the working life of any person. These factors have been incorporated in the proposed 15% contingency deduction. The defendant , on the other hand, argues for a 50%
contingency deduction to be applied. The minor and her family are residing in the
Eastern Cape Province where the unemployment rate indicates that there is a low
demand for jobseekers. This would be compounded by only obtaining a matric qualification. It is argued that at the time when the minor would have entered the employment market after her matric year, the applicable unemployment rate will be at 82%, suggesting an 18% chance of actually finding employment. At each stage of
employment that is foreseeable during the minor’s lifetime, her prospects of
employment are less than 50%. Therefore, purely taking into account unemployment, and none of the other vicissitudes of life, at each of the stages, being at age 20 years, 25 years and 30 years, it is improbable that she will become employed.
[8] The determination of loss of earning capacity is speculative as held in
Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) :
‘Any enquiry into
damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature speculative because it involves a
prediction as to the future, without the benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs or
oracles. All that the Court can do is to make an estimate, which is often a very rough
1 Nkomo v President Insurance Co Ltd 1992 (4) C&B A4 -82 (W); Uijs v General Accident Versekerings
Maatskappy Beperk 1991 (4) C&B A4 -88 (C); Hurter v Road Accident Fund and Another 2010 (6)
QOD A4- 12 (ECP); Cordeira v Road Accident Fund 2010 QOD A4 -45 (GNP).
10
estimate, of the present value of the loss.’2 The court necessarily exercises a wide
discretion when it assesses the quantum of damages due to loss of earning capacity
and has considerable discretion to award what it considers suitable and just . Over
time, our courts have accepted that the extent of the period over which a plaintiff’s
income has to be established has a direct influence on the extent to which
contingencies have to be accounted for. Put differently, the longer period over which
unforeseen contingencies can have an influence over the accuracy of the amount
adjudged to be the probable income of the plaintiff, the higher the contingencies that
have to be applied. 3
[9] A contingency deduction is made so that any possible and relevant future
event which might otherwise have caused or influenced the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff is considered. Contingencies have been described as ‘the
vicissitudes of life, such as illness, unemployment, life expectancy, early retirement and other unforeseen factors’ .
4 In Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
the court, with reference to an Australian case, took into account that the ‘fortunes of life’ are not always adverse and it is therefore a mistake to suppose the necessity to scale down an award for loss of income. What it involves depends on a
consideration what the future may have held for the particular individual concerned.
All vicissitudes are not harmful; they may be favourable.
5
[10] The following factors are relevant in order to determine what would be a fair
and reasonable contingency deduction in the circumstances of this case:
(a) The minor’s mother is 28 years old, single and obtained a Grade 10
qualification at school in 2004 . She is unemployed and has never been
employed except for having generated some earnings by doing recycling work
for a two -to-three- month period earning R1200 per month. The minor’s mother
2 See Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA) at para 8.
3 Goodall v President Insurance Co Ltd 1978 (1) SA 389 (W)392H – 393G.
4 Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA) at para 3.
5 Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO at 117.
11
had to terminate her attempt to generate an income as the minor was
struggling without her permanent caregiving. Since then, the plaintiff has been
the full - time caregiver of the minor.
(b) The minor’s grandfather, B […] M[…] (according to report by Lance
Marais) or L […] M[…] (according to report by Marc Peverett) is 53 years old
and has obtained a Grade 4 qualification (according to report by Lance Marias) or a Grade 6 qualification (according to report by Marc Peverett). He
earns an income by doing gardening/cleaning ‘piece jobs ’.
(c) The minor’s maternal aunt (27 years) obtained Grade 11, failed Grade
12 and is unemployed. From the report by Marc Peverett, compiled when the
maternal aunt was 29 years old, she was working as a cleaner and earned an income of R780 per month. (d) The minor’s father worked as a safety guard at the time when the minor
was conceived. His occupational experience falls within the semi -skilled
occupational group. No further information regarding the father is available
and he does not play any role in the care or maintenance of the minor.
(e) The minor is a 15 year -old girl with severe quadriplegic cerebral palsy.
She is immobile, has no functional hand use, is non- verbal , has severe
intellectual disability and a severe visual impairment. She is completely in need of care of others for her needs including feeding, which she does take
orally rather than by gastrostomy. Her immobility and inability to self -feed are
strongly adverse factors for her life expectancy. A positive factor is to feed orally. She does not have epilepsy. Initially, dur ing 2020, Dr Jordan Brooks
estimated the minor’s life expectancy to be 22.7 years to age 33.2 based upon the information that she was able to lift her head consistently in prone position. However , since further information came to hand that the minor does
not lift her head in the prone position, the updated life expectancy estimate is revised by Dr Jordan Brooks to 16.7 years to age 31.9. Professor Peter Cooper ’s revised and updated estimate based upon the updated information
is 15.9 years to age 31.1 years .
12
[11] The percentage of the contingency deduction depends upon a number of
factors and ranges between 5% and 50%.6 In Singh and another v Ebrahim
(8027/2004) [2008] ZAKZHC 112 (30 July 2008) the diminished life expectancy was
assessed of a minor child who suffered brain damage as a result of medical
negligenc e and, in awarding damages for loss of earnings, a contingency deduction
of 15% was applied. In Kriel NO obo S v Member of the Executive Council for Health
Gauteng Provincial Government (9407/2017) [2020] ZAGPJHC 273 (4 November
2020) Meyer J considered the appropriate contingency deduction that should be
applied to the child’s loss of earnings and held that a 20% contingency deduction to
be appropriate. In AD and IB v MEC for Health and Social Development, Western
Cape Provincial Government 2016 (7A4) QOD 32 (WCC) Rogers J held, with
reference to Singh that a contingency deduction of 17.5 years to be appropriate.
Rogers J found that something more than merely the child’s life expectancy of 43.5 additional years is required to depart from the normal range of between 15% and
20%.
[12] On 2 December 2024 Manala Actuaries calculated the loss of earnings in
respect of the minor. The report containing the calculation and salary information
was handed up by agreement between the parties during the hearing of the matter.
The calculation date is 1 January 2025 and is based upon the Industrial
Psychologists reports and upon instructions received from the legal representatives
of the parties . It is assumed that the minor would have finished matric when she
would have turned 18 years i.e. December 2027. She would have a period of 3.5
years of unemployment after matric until 31 December 2030. The following career
path is taken into consideration:
(a) 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2030 (3.5 years – unemployed)
6 (AA Mutual Association Ltd v Maqula 1978 (1) SA 805 (A) 812; Van der Plaats v SA Mutual Fire &
General Insurance Co Ltd 1980(3) SA 105(A) 114- 115A - D.
13
(b) 1 July 2031: Median quartile for grade 12 ( early career stage) i.e.
R84 000 per annum, July 2024 money terms;
(c) Age 40 years (October 2049): Median q uartile for grade 12 (mid- career
stage) i.e.R169 000 per annum, July 2024 money terms;
(d) Age 55 years (1 October 2064) Median quartile for grade 12 (late
career stage) i.e. R247 000 per annum, July 2024 money terms.
[13] No allowance has been made for social grants. An expected age of death at
age 31.1 years has been utilised for the calculation. A reduced life expectancy of
15.85 years at the calculation date is used. The calculation for future loss of income amount s to R794 675. In Bee v Road Accident Fund 2018 (4) SA 366 (SCA) the
Supreme Court of Appeal held that the younger the victim the longer the period over
which the vicissitudes of life will operate and the greater the uncertainty in assessing the claimant’s likely career path. A 15 % deduction for loss of earnings over a work lifespan of 11 years was held to be appropriate. In PM v MEC for Health, Gauteng
Provincial Government (A5093/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 346 (7 March 2017) the
court, on appeal , referred to ‘the trial court’s large contingency deduction of 50%’ in
respect of loss of earnings of a child diagnosed with cerebral palsy, as being out of general accord with the contingency deductions previously applied in comparable cases.
[14] I agree with the contention on behalf of the plaintiff that the high rate of
unemployment in South Africa and the minor’s earning capacity being diminished or
interrupted by ‘. . .
periods of unemployment by reason of incapacity due to illness or
accident, or to labour unrest or general economic conditions’7 are the normal vicissitudes
of life taken into account by applying a contingency deduction of between 15% and
7 Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 116H -117A.
14
20%, being the normal contingency deduction. I furthermore have regard to the
possibility that the economic growth may exceed the expectations suggested by the
defendant and therefore agree that there are no special circumstances present to
indicate that a higher contingency deduction ought to be implemented. In the
circumstances I consider that a 20% contingency deduction should be applied to the actuarially calculated loss of earnings. The calculation of the minor’s loss of earnings, with a 20% contingenc y deduction is as follows:
Pre-morbid future earnings R794 675
Less 20% contingency R158 935
Less post -morbid earnings R0
Total R635 740
[15] The establishment of a trust for the benefit of the minor is necessary for the
protection of the funds already paid by the defendant as well as any future payment
regarding the claim for damages against the defendant. Mr Myburgh SC, counsel on
behalf of the plaintiff , informed the court that a trust has been established without the
knowledge of the attorney acting on behalf of the plaintiff and it is unknown who is
currently administering the said trust. The wording of the proposed trust deed
submitted by the plaintiff at the hearing of the matter is not disputed and the parties
agree that an order for the establishment of a trust be made as per the draft order which was received subsequent to the hearing of this matter.
[16] In the result the following order is made:
1. The Defendant is order ed to pay the Plaintif f, in her repres entative
capacity, the amount of R635 740.00 (SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY -FIVE
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY RAND) in f ull and final settlement of
the Plaintiff’s claim for loss o f earnings.
15
2. Insofar as the Defendant fails to make the payment as ordered in
parag raph 1 supra, within a period of 30 days from date of the order, the
Defendant is ordered to pay interest to the Plaintiff on the amoun t payable, at
the prescribe d interest rate per annum, a tempore mora e, calculated from
the 31st day after judgment to the date of final payment , both days inclu ded.
3. The Plain tiff’s attorney of record is authorised to cause to be created,
within 6 (SIX) mont hs of the date of this order, a trust to be established in
accordanc e with the Trust Property Control Act No 57 of 1988, and, if it is not
created within 6 (six) months to approach this Court or a Judge in chambe rs
(as directed by the Judge President or Deputy Judge President) for a
further direction or extension of time, which trust: -
3.1 shall be created in accordan ce with the draft trust deed, and
shall contain the provisio ns set out therei n, a copy of which is
annex ed hereto as “A”;
3.2 shall have as its trustee MARIA MAGDA LENA ROBB ERTSE
with the powers and du ties as set out in the af oresaid trust deed.
4. The trustee shall: -
4.1 Be entitled in the execution of their duties and fiduciary
respo nsibilities towards the beneficiary of the trust, to have the
attorney and clientcosts and disbursem ents of Plaintif f’s attorneys
taxed, unless agreed; and
4.2 Be obliged to render security to the satisfact ion of the Master
of the High Court.
4.3 Be entitled and oblige d to take all neces sary steps to recover
any mone y, paid by the Defendant flowing from this action, paid over
to any other trust registered for the benefit of the mino r, and to
16
deman d full accounting f rom a ny such trust.
5. The Plaintiff’s attorneys of record:
5.1 Are authorised, pending the creation and registration of the
trust, tinvest the award less such fees and/or costs to which they are
entitled, in an interest-bearing account in terms of section 86(4) of the
Legal Practice Act, Act 28 of 2014, and to make payment of any
reasonab le expense or disbursement for the benefit of the minor child
as a trustee would have been able to do should such expenditure or
disbursem ent be regarded as reasonably necessary;
5.2 Shall account fully to the trustee appointed, of all costs,
fees, expenditure and/or disbursements paid from the award once t he
trust had been r egistered and the ba lance of the award paid over.
6. The Defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs of suit,
to date, insofar as it relates to loss of earnings, on the High Court scale, such
costs to include the f ollowin g:
6.1 Insofar as not paid in terms of any previ ous order or
settlement, the reasonable costs attendant upon the obtaining of
medico-legal reports and/or addendu m reports and/or joint minutes, if
any, of the following expert witnesses i n terms whereo f expert notices
were filed:
6.1.1 Dr J Bro oks (Life Exp ectancy);
6.1.2 M Net havh ani & Laa uwen (Educational Psycholog ists)
17
6.1.3 L Marais (I ndustrial Psychologist);
6.1.4 Catherine Rice (Occ upational Therap ist)
6.1.5 Munroe Actuaries.
6.2 Thecosts attendant upon the appointment of senior counsel
Myburgh SC, includ ing his reasonable fees for preparati on, drafting
of the opening subm issions and heads of argument, as well as
his reasonable day fee f or 3 December 2024, to be taxed on scale C.
6.3 The costs of attorneys, to date of this order, which shall,
subjec t to the discretion of the taxing master, include necessary
travelling costs and expenses incurred on behalf of the Plaintiff,
preparation for trial and expenses, preparation for trial and
attendance at court on 3 December 2024.
6.4 The reasonable costs incurred by and on behalf of the Plaintiff
in as well as the costs consequent to attending the medic o-
legal examinations of the educational psychologist s, industrial
psychol ogists and/ or life expectancy expert s.
6.5 The cos ts con sequent to the plaintiff ’s trial bundl es being
prepared.
6.6 The costs of round table meetings between Myburgh SC and
Dodson SC.
6.7 The costs of and consequent of the holdi ng of all expert
meetings between the Life expectan cy experts and i ndustrial
psychologist s.
18
7. The defendant shall pay interest on the above taxed or agreed costs
of suit at the prescribe d statutory rate calcul ated from 31 (THIRTY -ONE) days
after agreement in respect thereof, or from the date of affixing of the
taxing master’s allocatur, to date of payment .
8. Any costs incurred by the Plaintiff’s previous attorney of record, insofar
as it relates to loss of earni ngs, are reserved.
9. Plaintiff’s counsel declared that there is no contingency fee ag reement.
10. Any payment due in terms of this order shall be paid into the following
trust account
:
WERNER BOSHOFF INC.
Standard Bank Lynn wood Ridge
Account Number: 0 […]
Bran ch Code: 0 12-445
REF: MAT163 2
VAN RHYN J
Appearances
For the Plaintiff: S J Myburgh SC
Instructed by: Honey Incorporated
Bloemfontein
For the Defendant : A Dodson SC
L Mtukushe
A Raw
Instructed by: State Attorney
Bloemfontein