[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
LPL4802 October November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025
- DUE 30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 30 October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2
2025 - DUE 30 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY) Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng
Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20
June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your response must be
written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported
by relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks. 1.1 According
to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have approached
comparable cases when assessing general damages? Discuss with reference
to the relevant authority cited in the judgment. (15 marks) 1.2How should
general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness? Support
your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook.
(10 marks) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 5 of 9
The Assessment of General Damages for Non-Patrimonial
Loss
The assessment of non-patrimonial loss, or general damages (injury to personality), for a victim
of bodily injury is fundamentally a matter of judicial discretion aimed at achieving a fair and
reasonable monetary award. This process is guided by common law principles, which dictate
both the use of comparable precedents and the subjective versus objective nature of the loss
itself, particularly in cases involving permanent unconsciousness.
1.1 The Judicial Approach to Comparable Cases
According to the established principles of South African law, which the majority judgment in
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS would have applied, the
court a quo should have approached comparable cases not as strict binding precedents, but as a
general guide when assessing general damages.
, This principle finds its seminal authority in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
(1984 (1) SA 98 (A)). The Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of Appeal) laid down the
framework for consistency, stating that:
1. Comparable Awards are not Precedents: The court's primary duty is to determine an
amount it considers to be fair and just in the particular circumstances of the case before it.
Comparable awards merely assist the court in achieving this goal.
2. Maintaining Uniformity: The chief purpose of referring to comparable cases is to
maintain a measure of uniformity in the awards made, ensuring that similar injuries
receive broadly similar levels of compensation.
3. Avoidance of Slavish Adherence: A court is specifically cautioned against slavishly
adhering to previous awards. This is because no two cases are exactly alike; the quantum
(amount) of general damages is influenced by the unique facts of the claimant, including
their age, sex, lifestyle, social standing, and the severity and permanence of the sequelae
(consequences) of the injury.
LPL4802 October November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025
- DUE 30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 30 October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2
2025 - DUE 30 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY) Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng
Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20
June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your response must be
written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported
by relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks. 1.1 According
to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have approached
comparable cases when assessing general damages? Discuss with reference
to the relevant authority cited in the judgment. (15 marks) 1.2How should
general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness? Support
your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook.
(10 marks) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 5 of 9
The Assessment of General Damages for Non-Patrimonial
Loss
The assessment of non-patrimonial loss, or general damages (injury to personality), for a victim
of bodily injury is fundamentally a matter of judicial discretion aimed at achieving a fair and
reasonable monetary award. This process is guided by common law principles, which dictate
both the use of comparable precedents and the subjective versus objective nature of the loss
itself, particularly in cases involving permanent unconsciousness.
1.1 The Judicial Approach to Comparable Cases
According to the established principles of South African law, which the majority judgment in
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS would have applied, the
court a quo should have approached comparable cases not as strict binding precedents, but as a
general guide when assessing general damages.
, This principle finds its seminal authority in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
(1984 (1) SA 98 (A)). The Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of Appeal) laid down the
framework for consistency, stating that:
1. Comparable Awards are not Precedents: The court's primary duty is to determine an
amount it considers to be fair and just in the particular circumstances of the case before it.
Comparable awards merely assist the court in achieving this goal.
2. Maintaining Uniformity: The chief purpose of referring to comparable cases is to
maintain a measure of uniformity in the awards made, ensuring that similar injuries
receive broadly similar levels of compensation.
3. Avoidance of Slavish Adherence: A court is specifically cautioned against slavishly
adhering to previous awards. This is because no two cases are exactly alike; the quantum
(amount) of general damages is influenced by the unique facts of the claimant, including
their age, sex, lifestyle, social standing, and the severity and permanence of the sequelae
(consequences) of the injury.
