LPL4802
October November Portfolio Semester 2 2025
Unique number: 689535
Due Date: 30 October 2025
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO
PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly make use of
previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is essential to refer to
comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-patrimonial loss, they must
only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding rule. The court referred to De Jongh v
Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the primary principle remains the discretion of the court.
Comparable cases help create a framework of fairness and consistency but should not take
away the court’s power to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons with
past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated like items on a price
Terms of use
list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should consider various factors
By making use of this document you agree to:
such as Use the
the age of the plaintiff, this document
severity asofa guide for learning,
the injuries, comparison
medical and reference
treatment purpose,
received,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, or and
reference, misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly make use
of previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is essential to refer to
comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-patrimonial loss, they must
only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding rule. The court referred to De Jongh
v Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the primary principle remains the discretion of the
court. Comparable cases help create a framework of fairness and consistency but should
not take away the court’s power to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons with
past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated like items on a
price list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should consider various
factors such as the age of the plaintiff, the severity of the injuries, medical treatment
received, emotional and physical suffering, and the long-term impact on the plaintiff’s life.2
The court leaned on the well-known principle established in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v
Lamb, where it was emphasised that the comparison of cases should not become a
detailed audit of old judgments. Rather, the process should help judges come to a fair
amount that aligns with previous awards in similar circumstances, ensuring that their
decision is not completely out of step with what has been awarded in other cases.3
It was also made clear that these comparisons need to take into account the changing
value of money over time. A previous award from many years ago cannot be used at face
value without adjusting for inflation. The court acknowledged that the value of damages
should reflect present-day currency values and purchasing power. This helps maintain
fairness and consistency in compensation.4
1
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, para 38.
2
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 36.
3
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A).
4
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 44.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
October November Portfolio Semester 2 2025
Unique number: 689535
Due Date: 30 October 2025
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO
PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly make use of
previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is essential to refer to
comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-patrimonial loss, they must
only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding rule. The court referred to De Jongh v
Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the primary principle remains the discretion of the court.
Comparable cases help create a framework of fairness and consistency but should not take
away the court’s power to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons with
past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated like items on a price
Terms of use
list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should consider various factors
By making use of this document you agree to:
such as Use the
the age of the plaintiff, this document
severity asofa guide for learning,
the injuries, comparison
medical and reference
treatment purpose,
received,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, or and
reference, misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly make use
of previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is essential to refer to
comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-patrimonial loss, they must
only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding rule. The court referred to De Jongh
v Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the primary principle remains the discretion of the
court. Comparable cases help create a framework of fairness and consistency but should
not take away the court’s power to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons with
past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated like items on a
price list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should consider various
factors such as the age of the plaintiff, the severity of the injuries, medical treatment
received, emotional and physical suffering, and the long-term impact on the plaintiff’s life.2
The court leaned on the well-known principle established in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v
Lamb, where it was emphasised that the comparison of cases should not become a
detailed audit of old judgments. Rather, the process should help judges come to a fair
amount that aligns with previous awards in similar circumstances, ensuring that their
decision is not completely out of step with what has been awarded in other cases.3
It was also made clear that these comparisons need to take into account the changing
value of money over time. A previous award from many years ago cannot be used at face
value without adjusting for inflation. The court acknowledged that the value of damages
should reflect present-day currency values and purchasing power. This helps maintain
fairness and consistency in compensation.4
1
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, para 38.
2
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 36.
3
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A).
4
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 44.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
