The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa
Abstract South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, an...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | African journal of legal studies 2023-04, Vol.15 (2), p.215-241 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 241 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 215 |
container_title | African journal of legal studies |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota |
description | Abstract
South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to 'grant appropriate relief' and to make 'just and equitable' orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual "fellows" should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1163/17087384-bja10076 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2803523395</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2803523395</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b308t-6214602e420c7a9d6f9b69196fd2f58615464950039eb1262b1b03cb905e26753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFOwzAQRC0EEqXwAdwscQ5d24kTc6taCkiVOLScIzt1WldOHOyEqn9P0oI4cdmVZt-MVoPQPYFHQjibkBSylGVxpPaSAKT8Ao0GLRrESzSilEAkUgbX6CaEPUBMYsZG6LDeaTxzdVdvfFdhV-L1weGFttYdAjY1Hu4rWfVjZ5onPO3hqpFetuZL46XeSountbTHYMLJ3ePzrrGmMO1xEOayklt9ilq5rt3haelNIW_RVSlt0Hc_e4w-Fs_r2Wu0fH95m02XkWKQtRGnJOZAdUyhSKXY8FIoLojg5YaWScZJEvNYJABMaEUop4ooYIUSkGjK04SN0cM5t_Hus9Ohzfeu8_3DIacZsIQyJgaKnKnCuxC8LvPGm0r6Y04gH_rNf_vNf_vtPZOzR3lj7V_s_45vhCJ59Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2803523395</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann ; Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</creator><creatorcontrib>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann ; Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to 'grant appropriate relief' and to make 'just and equitable' orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual "fellows" should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2210-9730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-7384</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/17087384-bja10076</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leiden | Boston: Brill | Nijhoff</publisher><subject>Claims ; Common law ; Comparative analysis ; Constitutional law ; Constitutional rights ; Courts ; Infringement ; Legal studies ; Pain ; Settlements & damages</subject><ispartof>African journal of legal studies, 2023-04, Vol.15 (2), p.215-241</ispartof><rights>Batchelor and Makore, 2023. Published with license by Koninklijke Brill NV</rights><rights>Copyright Africa Law Institute Apr 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-7300-131X ; 0000-0002-4515-8122</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</creatorcontrib><title>The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa</title><title>African journal of legal studies</title><description>Abstract
South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to 'grant appropriate relief' and to make 'just and equitable' orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual "fellows" should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets.</description><subject>Claims</subject><subject>Common law</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Constitutional rights</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Infringement</subject><subject>Legal studies</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Settlements & damages</subject><issn>2210-9730</issn><issn>1708-7384</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMFOwzAQRC0EEqXwAdwscQ5d24kTc6taCkiVOLScIzt1WldOHOyEqn9P0oI4cdmVZt-MVoPQPYFHQjibkBSylGVxpPaSAKT8Ao0GLRrESzSilEAkUgbX6CaEPUBMYsZG6LDeaTxzdVdvfFdhV-L1weGFttYdAjY1Hu4rWfVjZ5onPO3hqpFetuZL46XeSountbTHYMLJ3ePzrrGmMO1xEOayklt9ilq5rt3haelNIW_RVSlt0Hc_e4w-Fs_r2Wu0fH95m02XkWKQtRGnJOZAdUyhSKXY8FIoLojg5YaWScZJEvNYJABMaEUop4ooYIUSkGjK04SN0cM5t_Hus9Ohzfeu8_3DIacZsIQyJgaKnKnCuxC8LvPGm0r6Y04gH_rNf_vNf_vtPZOzR3lj7V_s_45vhCJ59Q</recordid><startdate>20230401</startdate><enddate>20230401</enddate><creator>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann</creator><creator>Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</creator><general>Brill | Nijhoff</general><general>Africa Law Institute</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7300-131X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-8122</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230401</creationdate><title>The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa</title><author>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann ; Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b308t-6214602e420c7a9d6f9b69196fd2f58615464950039eb1262b1b03cb905e26753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Claims</topic><topic>Common law</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Constitutional rights</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Infringement</topic><topic>Legal studies</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Settlements & damages</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>African journal of legal studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Batchelor, Bronwyn Le-Ann</au><au>Makore, Shelton Tapiwa Mota</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa</atitle><jtitle>African journal of legal studies</jtitle><date>2023-04-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>215</spage><epage>241</epage><pages>215-241</pages><issn>2210-9730</issn><eissn>1708-7384</eissn><abstract>Abstract
South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to 'grant appropriate relief' and to make 'just and equitable' orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual "fellows" should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets.</abstract><cop>Leiden | Boston</cop><pub>Brill | Nijhoff</pub><doi>10.1163/17087384-bja10076</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7300-131X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-8122</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2210-9730 |
ispartof | African journal of legal studies, 2023-04, Vol.15 (2), p.215-241 |
issn | 2210-9730 1708-7384 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2803523395 |
source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Claims Common law Comparative analysis Constitutional law Constitutional rights Courts Infringement Legal studies Pain Settlements & damages |
title | The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T05%3A25%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Conundrum%20of%20Two%20Fellows%20in%20The%20Same%20Ship:%20A%20Comparative%20Legal%20Analysis%20of%20The%20Duplicity%20of%20Damages%20in%20South%20Africa&rft.jtitle=African%20journal%20of%20legal%20studies&rft.au=Batchelor,%20Bronwyn%20Le-Ann&rft.date=2023-04-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=215&rft.epage=241&rft.pages=215-241&rft.issn=2210-9730&rft.eissn=1708-7384&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/17087384-bja10076&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2803523395%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2803523395&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |