标题：Raf v Sweqtman AF v (162/2014) [2015] ZASCA 22 (20 March 2015) a simple illustration of the SCA's statutory misinterpretation of section 17(4)(c) of the road accident fund act 56 of 1988
摘要：Introduction The problems associated with what Freckelton calls the "knowledge gap" (between judges and expert witnesses) carry with them the inherent danger that judicial decision-makers engage in deliberations and come to conclusions on the basis of evidence that they do not fully comprehend. The recent decision of Road Accident Fund v Sweatman (162/2014) [2015] ZASCA 22 (20 March 2015) (hereafter Sweatman) highlighted this danger. In this matter the Supreme Court of Appeal was faced with the interpretation of section 17(4)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1998 (hereafter the Act). Since the application of this section often involves actuarial calculations, the court relied on evidence led by actuaries to decide the matter. The knowledge gap between the court and these expert witnesses is evident in the fact that the resultant interpretation of the section defeats the purpose of an earlier amendment of the Act.
Loading...
