Court approves RAF payout cap

However, the court found that a regulation limiting healthcare costs in the amended Road Accident Fund Act was unconstitutional, notes a report on the IoL site. Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke also found that a provision of the RAF Act abolishing road accident victims' common law right to claim compensation for losses not compensable under the Act, was constitutional. The Law Society of SA (LSSA), Quad Para Association, the SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Johannesburg Attorney's Association, and people injured in road accidents, had applied to the Constitutional Court to appeal against a judgment handed down in the High Court in Johannesburg which had dismissed their constitutional challenge to amendments to the RAF Act. Moseneke declared unconstitutional a regulation relating to the tariff of healthcare services prescribed by the amended Act. The LSSA had argued this limited the right of access to health care services guaranteed by the Constitution. The respondents were the Minister of Transport and the Road Accident Fund. Full report on the IoL site Judgment

The Department of Transport welcomed the ruling, notes a report on the Fin24.com site. It quotes Deputy Transport Minister Jeremy Cronin, who said: 'The court held that the abolition of the common law right to claim compensation is a justifiable limitation of that right. The court stated that the abolition of the common law right is a necessary and rational part of an interim legislative scheme whose main purpose is to achieve the delivery of a social security service that is financially viable.' Cronin said the court held that the cap on compensation for the loss of income and loss of support was constitutionally sound. 'These rulings will also help to close loopholes through which a disproportionate amount of the RAF's compensation ends up in legal professional fees and not with accident victims,' Cronin said. Full report on the Fin24.com site

RAF chief executive Jacob Modise said he was thrilled by the judgment. 'We are very grateful. With regards to the medical costs, we do not fear the increased expenses this will cause the RAF. It is a small component of our expenses,' he is quoted as saying in a Beeld report. Ronald Bobroff, of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a member of the RAF committee of the Law Society, said the judgment represented a 'tragic, sad day' for millions of road users. 'The only ray of hope is the finding on the medical tariffs. He added that 'Rome has spoken' on the other two issues and that they had to accept that it was the end of the road. Full Beeld report

Another leading judgment on RAF matters was delivered in the North Gauteng High Court yesterday. According to a Beeld report, the court acknowledged the right of an unmarried, heterosexual life partner to claim from the RAF following the death of her boyfriend. Judge James Goodey found that permanent life partners in similar situations to Belinda Verheem, of Pretoria, have rights that should be protected. The report notes that previous judgments have acknowledged the rights of Muslim partners and gay couples where the parties were not married in terms of the Marriages Act. Verheem is claiming compensation for the loss of maintenance from her boyfriend with whom she had been living between 1990 until 2003 and with whom she planned a 'decent marriage'. Verheem never worked and her boyfriend supported her and three children, of which two are the couple's children. Goodey found that the boyfriend's commitment to maintain the family was not just an undertaking, but a binding contract. Full Beeld report