about
michael's website
Email Michael
 

Archives
January 2024
February 2022
September 2020
October 2017
November 2016
November 2015
April 2014
February 2014
August 2013
October 2012
August 2012
February 2012
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
February 2011
January 2011
October 2010
Subpoenas, the RAF management

A Johannesburg law firm has subpoenaed Regional and Executive Management of the RAF in respect of some of it’s High Court Trials. The contention of the attorney is that her clients are being hugely prejudiced by  inter alia having to cover preparation and/or reservation fees and costs of counsel when the bulk of these costs can and should be avoided.  We all know that the majority of High Court claims against the RAF settle on the steps of Court at the eleventh hour and at substantial cost to both the RAF and the accident victim.The attorney in question believes that this issue needs to be put before the court and this can only be done so with Executive and Regional Management present.She initially served about a dozen subpoenas in respect of different matters but has now agreed to withdraw all of them except for one. She feels that a public interest issue of such importance simply must be ventilated before the court.  The matter is apparently set to go to Court in April 2010.We all experience this problem, defendant and plaintiff attorneys alike. Defendant attorneys struggle to get instructions from the RAF and plaintiff attorneys are left to explain the astronomical trial costs to their clients.

The RAF has brought an application to have the subpoenas set aside and the attorney is opposing the application. This is an excellent opportunity to voice your opinion. Why not email me your views alternatively make some comments.  We’ll keep you posted as to what transpires.

Posted by Michael de Broglio on Wednesday 24-Mar-10


Subpoenas, the RAF management

Comments

cindy  said...
on Tuesday 12-Apr-11 09:02 PM
I was paid out for a RAF that happened about 3yrs ago. However, today i rec. a bill from the attorneys for attorney own client fee for R16 000? By capital rec =R65582.00, EFT client =R40 000.00, cost recovered =R3552.26 and EFT client R9153.12? Please could someone explain this to me? Ive done some reading on the net and came up with a "fee agreement". I do not understand any of this.

ferdi  said...
on Wednesday 07-Jul-10 02:02 PM
Jeff

Your comment on 23/4/10 refer.

I agree that is is a well argued judgment. The fact that the common law right is excluded will surely be changed by the concourt.

Having regard the Subpoena issue, that was already set down, what happened at court?

Michael  said...
on Tuesday 18-May-10 05:28 PM
As I understand it the application of the attorney was dismissed with costs....

Jeff  said...
on Tuesday 18-May-10 04:38 PM
Any update on this?

Jeff Bloch  said...
on Friday 23-Apr-10 03:20 PM
Any feedback on this? Also , everyone has been extremely silent on the challenge to amendment act judgement. Personally I think it a well reasoned judgement and that an appeal will fail. What does everyone else think?

Jeff Bloch  said...
on Thursday 25-Mar-10 10:36 AM
Great idea, its about time someone had the guts to do this. Any bet the matter will settle quickly and they will avoid a court appearance. What about all of us doing this to force them to settle earlier?

tc zn  said...
on Thursday 25-Mar-10 09:51 AM
i dont think the attorney in question should have anything to fear . the raf s employee presence at court is vital in relation to costs especially when the claimant through no fault of his own will have to fork out attorney and client costs from his compensation.secondly these are public monies which are been abused and the reckless behavior of the raf needs to be aired.

TALANE  said...
on Thursday 25-Mar-10 09:19 AM
I UNDERSTAND THE EMOTION BEHIND THE SUBPOENAS BUT SADLY IT DOES NOT MAKE LEGAL SENSE BECAUSE THE INTENDED OBJECTIVE IS NOT A SUBJECT BEFORE THE COURT.WE HOWEVER DO NEED TO FIND A WAY TO EXPOSE THE RAF FOR THE MILLIONS THEY WASTE ON COSTS.

xxxxx  said...
on Wednesday 24-Mar-10 08:51 PM
The attorney in question is aware that she may possibly get a hiding but what's the worst that happens..... an advserse cost order? The principle is too important to back down.
If it happens, she'll take it on the chin.

John  said...
on Wednesday 24-Mar-10 05:37 PM
It's about time. Now let's hear the Main Peanut wine and whinge on and on about "the attorneys" milking the system.

Post a Comment

* Your name:
* email:  (will not be published)
   Security Code:
*Security Code: Please type the above characters

 

Home




Johannesburg Web Design South Africa