,LPL4802 October November Exam 2025 - Due Date
30 October 2025; 100 % TRUSTED workings,
Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions.
1.1 How should the court a quo have approached comparable
cases when assessing general damages?
In the AAS case the majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal of
South Africa (SCA) emphasised the correct approach that a trial
court should adopt when assessing general damages for non-
patrimonial loss (i.e., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life
etc) and in particular how it should make use of “comparable
cases”. This part of the question asks you to explain how the
majority held the court of first instance ought to have
approached that (and thus how it mis-approached it in the high
court).
The general principle: use of comparable cases as guidance
but not as tariff
The SCA reiterated that when assessing general damages the
court enjoys a wide discretion. That discretion is, however, not
unfettered: the quantum must be fair and adequate given the
specific facts of the case, but at the same time consistency and
predictability demand that courts have regard to awards in
previous comparable cases. In South African doctrine it has long
been accepted that although non-pecuniary loss does not admit
exact monetary calculation, the courts look to “pattern” of
, comparable awards to guide their assessment rather than a
rigid grid. For example the textbook on quantum of non-
patrimonial loss notes:
“As stated … non-economic loss is not susceptible of
measurement in money. … Any figure which is awarded cannot
be other than artificial. … The need for even-handedness
requires that, when comparing awards in comparable cases,
regard must be had to their actual present monetary value.”
Studocu+1
It further emphasises that once a pattern of cases has been
identified, the next step is to “fit the case under consideration
into such a pattern”, by comparing seriousness of the injury etc.
Studocu
In the AAS case the majority faulted the high court for relying
too heavily on previous awards without properly calibrating
those prior awards to the facts of the present case (including
the claimant’s state of awareness, his loss of amenities, the
permanency, the age, etc). The SCA held that comparable cases
are not a “tariff” or formula, but rather a guide.
What the majority said the court a quo should have done
The majority made clear that the court a quo should have
proceeded as follows:
1. Identify the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries
and sequelae – including the medical evidence, prognosis,
30 October 2025; 100 % TRUSTED workings,
Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions.
1.1 How should the court a quo have approached comparable
cases when assessing general damages?
In the AAS case the majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal of
South Africa (SCA) emphasised the correct approach that a trial
court should adopt when assessing general damages for non-
patrimonial loss (i.e., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life
etc) and in particular how it should make use of “comparable
cases”. This part of the question asks you to explain how the
majority held the court of first instance ought to have
approached that (and thus how it mis-approached it in the high
court).
The general principle: use of comparable cases as guidance
but not as tariff
The SCA reiterated that when assessing general damages the
court enjoys a wide discretion. That discretion is, however, not
unfettered: the quantum must be fair and adequate given the
specific facts of the case, but at the same time consistency and
predictability demand that courts have regard to awards in
previous comparable cases. In South African doctrine it has long
been accepted that although non-pecuniary loss does not admit
exact monetary calculation, the courts look to “pattern” of
, comparable awards to guide their assessment rather than a
rigid grid. For example the textbook on quantum of non-
patrimonial loss notes:
“As stated … non-economic loss is not susceptible of
measurement in money. … Any figure which is awarded cannot
be other than artificial. … The need for even-handedness
requires that, when comparing awards in comparable cases,
regard must be had to their actual present monetary value.”
Studocu+1
It further emphasises that once a pattern of cases has been
identified, the next step is to “fit the case under consideration
into such a pattern”, by comparing seriousness of the injury etc.
Studocu
In the AAS case the majority faulted the high court for relying
too heavily on previous awards without properly calibrating
those prior awards to the facts of the present case (including
the claimant’s state of awareness, his loss of amenities, the
permanency, the age, etc). The SCA held that comparable cases
are not a “tariff” or formula, but rather a guide.
What the majority said the court a quo should have done
The majority made clear that the court a quo should have
proceeded as follows:
1. Identify the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries
and sequelae – including the medical evidence, prognosis,
