Judge puts Road Accident Fund on spot

A ROAD Accident Fund claims handler, called to court to explain her apparent bungling of a R2.8 million claim, failed to impress a Durban High Court judge with her explanation yesterday.

Judge Jacqui Henriques has now ordered the handler and her boss to submit further affidavits stating why they should not be held personally responsible for the litigation costs of the matter.

Judge Henriques put the two officials on terms last week at the conclusion of a two-day trial in which La Mercy boat skipper Colin Friedemann – who was injured in a head-on collision in October 2009 – was awarded almost R2.8m.

The fund had previously conceded liability and Friedemann’s lawyers had prepared expert reports and set the matter down for trial.

Usually with these cases the fund either negotiates a settlement or at least gives an upfront written undertaking to pay for future medical expenses on production of receipts.

Expensive

But in spite of promises that an offer was being formulated, Friedemann’s lawyers were forced to conduct an expensive full trial calling their experts after lawyers for the fund said repeatedly that they had received no instructions.

The judge ordered the fund to pay Friedemann’s legal costs on the most punitive scale, and demanded an explanation as to who was responsible.

These affidavits were supposed to have been filed on Monday, but the attorney handling the matter, Thami Tembe, handed them in only yesterday.

He took the blame, saying it had taken longer than expected to draft the documents.

The affidavit was deposed to by claims handler Hajra Mohamed and confirmed by her senior, Damyanti Morar.

They blamed some of the problems on the fact that the fund had appointed a new panel of attorneys in December last year and Friedemann’s matter had been given to Tembe’s law firm only in late April this year.

She said Friedemann had a “history of hopping from one job to another” and his previous earnings could not be independently proved through pay slips or tax returns.

“Due to the fact that we were dealing with public funds, I and my senior took a decision that his evidence about his earnings should be tested.”

The judge said there were gaps in this version and she wanted further clarity on when Tembe’s law firm had been engaged and what advice Tembe had given about an undertaking on future medical expenses.

Advocate Mark Oliff, for Friedemann, said his instructing attorney also wished to file a further affidavit.

It was agreed that the matter would be argued at a date still to be arranged.