Mattheus v Road Accident Fund (32445/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1170 (18 November 2024)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined the validity of the notice of intention to defend filed by the defendant on 2 July 2024, concluding it was improperly served electronically without the plaintiff's written consent as required by Rule 19(3). The notice was set aside for non-compliance with Rule 19(5), which mandates proper delivery of documents. The court emphasized that electronic service without consent does not constitute valid 'delivery' under the rules.
• The court ruled that the defendant's late filing of the notice of intention to defend (15 months after summons service) constituted an abuse of process. The defendant failed to engage in litigation despite multiple documents being served (e.g., summons, default judgment application, pre-trial notices). The judgment highlighted the unfair delay in resolving the plaintiff's claim, the impact on compensation timelines, and the misuse of procedural rules to avoid compliance.

Holdings

• The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with a certificate as envisaged in section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for 100% of the expenses to be incurred as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident on 12 July 2022.
• A valid Contingency Fee Agreement exists between the plaintiff and Slabbert & Slabbert Attorneys.
• The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including counsel's day fee, preparation, and heads of argument for specified dates.
• The defendant must pay the costs within 14 days following the agreement on costs or after the taxed costs are served, whichever comes first.
• The notice of intention to defend filed on 2 July 2024 was set aside by the court as it was served electronically without the plaintiff's consent, constituting an abuse of process.
• Interest on the R 823,774.05 capital amount will accrue after 180 days from the date the order is provided to the defendant, together with the bank details of the plaintiff's attorney's trust account.
• The issue of general damages is postponed sine die pending further proceedings.
• The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R 823,774.05 (Eight hundred and twenty-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four rand and five cents) in respect of the plaintiff's past and future loss of earnings.

Remedies

• 2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R 823 774.05 (Eight hundred and twenty-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four rand and five cents) in respect of the plaintiff's past and future loss of earnings.
• 7. Interest shall accrue on the capital amount in paragraph 2 above, after the expiration of 180 days from the time this order is provided to the defendant together with the bank details of the Trust Account of the plaintiff's attorney of record, Slabbert & Slabbert Attorneys.
• 4. The issue of general damages is postponed sine dies.
• 3. The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with a certificate as envisaged in section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for 100% of the expenses to be incurred as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident which had occurred on 12 July 2022.
• 6. The payment of the costs in paragraph 5 above shall be effected no later than 14 days following the date on which the agreement relating to the costs is reached between the parties or the stamped allocator following taxation is served on the defendant, whichever comes earlier.
• 8. A valid Contingency Fee Agreement exists between the Plaintiff and Slabbert & Slabbert Attorneys.
• 1. The Notice of intention to defend filed on 2 July 2024 in terms of Rule 19(3) is hereby set aside.
• 5. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, which costs shall include the cost of Counsel Adv. P. van der Schyf for 3 July 2024, 5 July 2024 and 11 July 2024 on scale B. Counsel's costs shall include his day fee, preparation and heads of argument.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court applied principles of natural justice, specifically the audi alterem partem principle, to determine that the late filing of the notice of intention to defend constituted an abuse of the court process. The ruling emphasized that procedural rules must not be exploited for ulterior motives, and the defendant's failure to comply with Rule 19(3) (requiring written consent for electronic service) rendered the notice invalid. This abuse of process justified setting aside the notice and ordering compensation for the plaintiff's loss of earnings.
• The court interpreted Rule 19(3) and Rule 19(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 19(3) mandates written consent for electronic service, which the defendant failed to obtain. Rule 19(5) permits late filing of a notice of intention to defend but requires proper delivery. The court held that mere electronic service without consent does not satisfy the 'delivery' requirement under the rules, underscoring the importance of strict adherence to procedural formalities.

Precedent Name

• South African Human Rights Commission v Standard Bank
• Beinash v Wixley
• Buthelezi Emergency Medical Service (Pty) Ltd v Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd
• Seronica Nathram v Road Accident Fund

Cited Statute

• Uniform Rules of Court
• Constitution of South Africa
• Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 1. The Notice of intention to defend filed on 2 July 2024 in terms of Rule 19(3) is hereby set aside.
• the notice of intention to defend in this matter was not delivered as prescribed by the Uniform Rules as it was 'served' electronically on the attorney of the plaintiff in terms of Rule 19(3) before the attorney of the plaintiff have given written consent that subsequent documents and notices may be exchanged by way of electronic mail.
• not only did the defendant not comply with the Rules but also used the Rules for ulterior motives and therefore as an abuse of the process of this Court.