Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T10:33:40.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The divergent approaches of English and South African courts, when considering actuarial expert testimony in the matter of an award for damages for future loss of earnings after a damage-causing event

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

H.L.M. du Plessis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyses the driving forces behind the willingness of South African courts to hear actuarial expert testimony in even the most simple of cases, in contrast to the more circumspect approach of the English courts, when assessing the damages arising out of future loss of earnings following a damage-causing incident. The analysis may well add insight to members of other professions and scientific communities that provide expert testimony to the courts. It is argued that English substantive law of damages and those influenced by its application have something to gain from a consideration of the approach in South Africa.

Keywords

Quantum of damagesfuture pecuniary lossexpert actuarial evidenceexpert testimonyexpert evidencedamages for future loss of earningsdamages for future pecuniary lossesmultiplier-multiplicand method

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 16 January 2012 , pp. 5 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boberg, P.Q.B. (1984). The Law of Delict. Juta & Co., Ltd, Cape Town Wetton Johannesburg.Google Scholar
Butt, Z., Haberman, S., Verrall, R., Wass, V. (2008). Calculating compensation for loss of future earnings: estimating and using work life expectancy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4, 763–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, A.S. (1987). Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Carstens, R.C. (2001). The social worker as expert witness in cases of child sexual abuse: a professional guideline. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Ciecka, J.E. (2008). The first mathematically correct life annuity. Journal of Legal Economics, 15(1), 59–63.Google Scholar
Daykin, C. (2009). Fair compensation needs actuaries. Journal of Personal Injury Law, 1, 48–65.Google Scholar
Erasmus, H.J. (1975). Aspects of the history of the South African law of damages. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, 104–118, 268–283, 362–369.Google Scholar
Exall, G. (2004). Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death, Eleventh Edition. Lexis Nexis, UK.Google Scholar
Hahlo, H.R., Kahn, E. (1973). The South African Legal System and its Background. Juta & Co., Limited, Cape Town.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, T., James, M. (2007). Expert evidence: Law and Practice (Second Edition). Sweet & Maxwell, London.Google Scholar
Holding, F.J. (1997). Essential Quantum Cases. Butterworths London, Edinburgh and Dublin.Google Scholar
Howroyd, R., Howroyd, F.J. (1958). The assessment of compensation for loss of support. South African Law Journal, LXXV(I), 65–83.Google Scholar
Koch, R.J. (1983). The actuary and damages for lost earnings. Transactions of The Actuarial Society Of South Africa, V(III), 78–118.Google Scholar
Koch, R.J. (1984). Damages for lost income. Juta & Co, Ltd, Cape Town Wetton Johannesburg.Google Scholar
Koch, R.J. (1993). The Reduced Utility of a Life Plan as Basis for the Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death. Doctorate dissertation, Faculty of Law, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., McNabb, R., Robinson, H., Wass, V. (2003). Loss of earnings following personal injury: Do the courts adequately compensate injured parties? The Economic Journal, 113(November), F568–F584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meintjes-Van der Walt, L. (2001). A few plain rules? A comparative perspective on exclusionary rules of expert evidence in South Africa. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, 64(Issue 2), 236–256.Google Scholar
Milburn-Pyle, P., van der Linde, J.H. (1974). The actuarial aspects of compensation for loss of support. Transactions of The Actuarial Society Of South Africa, II(II), 292–329.Google Scholar
Owen, R., Shier, P.S. (1986). The actuary in damages cases – expert witness or court astrologer? Journal of the Institute of Actuaries Students’ Society, 29, 53–93.Google Scholar
Prevett, J.H. (1968). Actuarial assessment of damages. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 94, 293–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevett, J.H. (1972). Actuarial Assessment of Damages: The Thalidomide Case. The Modern Law Review, 35, No 2, 140–155 and 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyneke, M.F.B. (1976). Die elemente van die begrip skade. Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 26–58.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, M. (2006). A History of the Theory of Investments: my annotated bibliography. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C.W.H., Rademeyer, H. (2000). Bewysreg. Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Durban.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C.W.H., Rademeyer, H. (2003). Law of Evidence. Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Durban.Google Scholar
Spengler, J.T. (1977). The Invisible Hand and Other Matters: Adam Smith on Human Capital. The American Economic Review, 67(No 1), 32–36.Google Scholar
Street, H. (1962). Principles of the Law of Damages. Sweet & Maxwell Limited, London.Google Scholar
Van der Walt, J.C., Midgley, J.R. (2005). Principles of Delict. Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Durban.Google Scholar
Visser, P.J., Potgieter, J.M. (2003a). Skadevergoedingsreg. Juta & Kie, Bpk, Landsdowne.Google Scholar
Visser, P.J., Potgieter, J.M. (2003b). Visser and Potgieter's Law of Damages. Juta & Co., Ltd, Landsdowne.Google Scholar
Zeffert, D.T., Paizes, A.P., Skeen, A. St Q. (2003). The South African Law of Evidence. Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Durban.Google Scholar