LETTER: Judge’s overreach delays justice for road accident victims

I am heartened that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has been scathing of the judgment of judge Denise Fisher in the “extraordinary appeal” that came before it, pursuant to her having presided in the actions by plaintiffs Taylor and Mathonsi (“SCA overrules high court’s ‘injudicious overreach’ in RAF matters”, May 9).

It seems to me as a layman that the learned judge adopted an authoritarian attitude in not recognising that the parties had reached settlement of the actions that required the court’s approval to be made an order of court. Of course, she was entitled to raise appropriate concerns, which if plausibly answered would enable her to grant an order.

Instead, she postponed the matter for a month, requiring questions to be answered, and having heard argument by both parties she reserved judgment, raising different questions.

When her judgment was delivered she clearly demonstrated the real reason behind her earlier conduct. She has clearly arrogated the function of stopping the “haemorrhage” of public funds, even suggesting that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) should be placed into liquidation. On what evidence? This was not an issue before her. Then, in her denunciation of the legal teams and their experts, without a shred of evidence, she directed that they be reported to their respective professional councils. This was overturned by the SCA.

It is chilling that the SCA found that not a single finding the learned judge had made was open to her to make. She had decided non-issues without evidence, to the detriment of all concerned. The SCA regarded this as injudicious overreach, which has to be strongly deprecated. Good for the SCA!

Parties reach settlements to bring an end to litigation. The high court is overwhelmed with RAF actions that clog the court roll. Matters take years to get to trial. Trial dates take ages to be allocated. Injured victims wait for years to be compensated and restart their lives. Incompetent judges prolong their suffering.

What I would like to know is what sanction will be imposed on justice Fisher? Will she be suspended without pay and benefits? After all, these are also public funds. Given how pathetic her insight and judgment appears to have been, is there room for a punitive costs order against her for the expensive and unnecessary costs the plaintiffs would have incurred to overturn her absurd judgment?

At the end, it is the victims of the road accidents that have been penalised through ultimately receiving even less compensation. I know what I would do if I ever appeared before judge Fisher as a party to an action — demand her recusal.

Michael Hogan
Saxonwold

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.​