100% de satisfacción garantizada Inmediatamente disponible después del pago Tanto en línea como en PDF No estas atado a nada 4,6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Examen

LPL4802 PORTFOLIO (ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED

Puntuación
5.0
(1)
Vendido
3
Páginas
15
Grado
A
Subido en
26-10-2025
Escrito en
2025/2026

Well-structured LPL4802 PORTFOLIO (ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. (DETAILED ANSWERS - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!)... 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 QUESTION 2: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AND SATISFACTION FOR NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY) Study the majority judgment in the case mentioned in question 1 for question 2.1 2.1 Should claims for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life always be combined in their quantification? In your answer, first explain the distinction between these two heads of damages and then discuss the importance of handling them as separate heads. (12 marks) 2.2 Study the facts below and answer the question that follows: Factual Scenario On 12 March 2023, along the R81 road near Louis Trichardt, a motor vehicle collision occurred between a minibus taxi and a delivery truck. The plaintiff, Mr. Thabiso Mokoena, a 34-year-old schoolteacher from Polokwane, was a passenger in the taxi. He sustained multiple fractures to his leg and arm, as well as internal injuries requiring extended hospitalisation. The Road Accident Fund (RAF), acting on behalf of the defendant, accepted liability for the accident. After negotiations, Mr. Mokoena’s legal representatives secured an award of special damages amounting to R3.8 million, covering past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and related financial losses. Subsequent to the award, Mr. Mokoena’s lawyers have now lodged a claim for general damages, contending that he has suffered severe pain, loss of amenities of life, and emotional distress. The claim for general damages amounts to R2.5 million. The defendant, represented by counsel, disputes the quantum sought, contending that special and general damages are not entirely separate silos, but must be considered together in a holistic assessment. Assume the role of counsel for the defendant. Prepare structured heads of argument, supported by appropriate legal authority, to persuade the court that general damages ought not to be assessed in isolation in this context. (13 marks) LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 6 of 9 Aspect Mark Allocation Citation of Court and parties 4 (cite the appropriate division and parties fully) Introduction 2 (identify issues) Law and principle 4 (Provide a clear argument – referring to the facts to support your view) Conclusion 2 (include prayers) Language 1 (Use clear legal language, with full sentences) Total (13 marks) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 7 of 9 QUESTION 3 :NATURE, CAUSING AND FORMS OF PATRIMONIAL LOSS Read the facts below and answer the questions that follow. Cornor McGregor, a 38-year-old South African male (also a US citizen), was driving his 2020 Mercedes-Benz C180 (registration AA 00 CD) on the R82 south of Johannesburg when he was struck from behind by a delivery van (registration BB 00 TT). The van, owned by HHT Bakeries (Pty) Ltd, lost control and caused the collision. HHT Bakeries has conceded liability. The accident occurred on 16 December 2019. At the time, Cornor was employed as an orthopaedic surgeon at a private hospital, earning more than R250 000 per month. He sustained the following injuries: soft tissue damage to the neck, a fractured left thumb, a fractured left toe, and a deep wound to his left temple. He remained in a coma for 21 days and thereafter spent four months recuperating at home. Having exhausted his paid sick leave, he received no income during this period. A psychologist later reported that Cornor suffered from severe intermittent memory loss. His employer subsequently terminated his contract, as he could no longer perform his duties. Cornor’s vehicle, valued at R1 200 000 before the accident, was written off and reduced to a wreck worth R600 000. He also lost an Apple watch (not available in South Africa at the time), which cost USD 2500. While his vehicle remained at the roadside overnight, thieves stole the vehicle’s battery (worth R45 000) and four wheels with rims (worth R80 000). Fourteen months after his dismissal, Cornor consults your office seeking advice on whom to sue for his losses. Answer the following questions: 3.1 State two patrimonial claims Cornor may institute against the Road Accident Fund and indicate the documents required to prove them. (4 marks) 3.2 Identify three of Cornor’s injuries for which he may NOT claim non-patrimonial damages from the Road Accident Fund and provide authority for your answer in the form of legislation and rules. (4 marks) LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 8 of 9 3.3 Explain why HHT Bakeries has rejected Cornor’s claim for the stolen wheels and battery. (2 marks) 3.4 Cornor wishes to claim the value of his Apple watch in USD from HHT Bakeries. With reference to authority, advise him on his prospects of success. (2 marks) 3.5 Apart from the Apple watch, what else may Cornor claim from HHT Bakeries? Explain why he cannot claim this from the Road Accident Fund, citing authority. (4marks) 3.6 Cornor urgently needs money to settle past hospital bills and support himself while awaiting the damages trial. Advise him on the legal mechanism available, with reference to legislation. (8 marks) 3.7 What is the Road Accident Fund Act July 2025 limit for claims of loss of income and loss of support? (1 mark) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 9 of 9 QUESTION 4 (DRAFTING) Read the case Mdlekeza v Gallie 2021 (4) SA 531 (WCC) and answer the following. Note: Your answers must be accurate in both form and substance. You are encouraged to consult precedents when answering this section. 4.1 Draft a Notice of Motion, addressed to both the Registrar of the Court and the respondent, which the applicant in this case could have filed in respect of the alleged defamation. Your draft should conform as closely as possible to Form 2(a) of the First Schedule to the Uniform Rules. Do not include a founding affidavit. (10 marks) 4.2 Draft an Answering Affidavit that the respondent in this case could reasonably have filed in response to the allegations possibly made in the founding affidavit. Your version of the facts should correspond closely with the testimony recorded by Slingers J in the judgment. (15 marks)

Mostrar más Leer menos
Institución
Grado









Ups! No podemos cargar tu documento ahora. Inténtalo de nuevo o contacta con soporte.

Libro relacionado

Escuela, estudio y materia

Institución
Grado

Información del documento

Subido en
26 de octubre de 2025
Número de páginas
15
Escrito en
2025/2026
Tipo
Examen
Contiene
Preguntas y respuestas

Temas

Vista previa del contenido

LPL4802
PORTFOLIO Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
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

DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
 Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
 Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
 Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
 Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.

, For additional support +27 81 278 3372

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

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).
$3.13
Accede al documento completo:

100% de satisfacción garantizada
Inmediatamente disponible después del pago
Tanto en línea como en PDF
No estas atado a nada

Reseñas de compradores verificados

Se muestran los comentarios
2 meses hace

5.0

1 reseñas

5
1
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
Reseñas confiables sobre Stuvia

Todas las reseñas las realizan usuarios reales de Stuvia después de compras verificadas.

Conoce al vendedor

Seller avatar
Los indicadores de reputación están sujetos a la cantidad de artículos vendidos por una tarifa y las reseñas que ha recibido por esos documentos. Hay tres niveles: Bronce, Plata y Oro. Cuanto mayor reputación, más podrás confiar en la calidad del trabajo del vendedor.
Edge
Seguir Necesitas iniciar sesión para seguir a otros usuarios o asignaturas
Vendido
9796
Miembro desde
2 año
Número de seguidores
4253
Documentos
2733
Última venta
3 horas hace

4.2

1197 reseñas

5
672
4
240
3
184
2
28
1
73

Recientemente visto por ti

Por qué los estudiantes eligen Stuvia

Creado por compañeros estudiantes, verificado por reseñas

Calidad en la que puedes confiar: escrito por estudiantes que aprobaron y evaluado por otros que han usado estos resúmenes.

¿No estás satisfecho? Elige otro documento

¡No te preocupes! Puedes elegir directamente otro documento que se ajuste mejor a lo que buscas.

Paga como quieras, empieza a estudiar al instante

Sin suscripción, sin compromisos. Paga como estés acostumbrado con tarjeta de crédito y descarga tu documento PDF inmediatamente.

Student with book image

“Comprado, descargado y aprobado. Así de fácil puede ser.”

Alisha Student

Preguntas frecuentes