Tag Archive | Western Cape High Court

Tax evasion extinguishes loss of earning capacity claim – IAC Newsletter 38/2013, (November 2013)

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the 38th edition of Independent Actuaries & Consultant’s (IAC’s) monthly newsletter.

Tax evasion extinguishes loss of earning capacity claim – Heese N.O. v RAF, Western Cape High Court, case no: A586/2012

Hans Ulrich Peters (‘Peters’), a German businessman, was seriously injured in a motor car accident in Cape Town on 10 June 2000. The appellant, an advocate, was appointed as his curator ad litem (‘the plaintiff’) for purposes of pursuing a claim against the respondent (‘the RAF’). The curator issued summons against the RAF in October 2004. The merits were referred to arbitration. In June 2007 the arbitrator determined that the RAF was fully liable for any damages suffered by Peters.

The determination of damages went to trial in the high court and the only aspect that remained in issue was Peters’ alleged diminution of earning capacity. The parties agreed at the beginning of the trial that the determination of damages in respect of Peters’ earning capacity would be divided into two phases.

In the first phase the trial judge would be asked to determine the gross pre-tax income that Peters would have earned but for the accident. The second phase would address questions of tax.
The curator contended, on behalf of Peters, that his historic profits as a businessman over the period 1991 to 2001, as reflected in his financial statements and tax returns, was not a safe guide to his likely post-accident profits because he had dishonestly evaded tax in Germany by understating his income and overstating his expenditure.

Blignault J dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, finding that Peters had no post-accident earning capacity to which a value could be ascribed. The trial judge based his conclusion on two lines of reasoning.

The first line was the following. The judge accepted that Peters’ business (the selling of magazine subscriptions) was not unlawful. The capacity to earn money from such a business could legitimately be the subject of compensation. However, Peters could not lawfully have continued to conduct the business without disclosing to the German tax authorities that he had evaded tax. If Peters could only earn future income by dishonestly refraining from making such a disclosure, it would be contrary to policy to award him compensation for the loss of the future earnings. And if he did make the necessary disclosure, this would have caused the sterilisation of his earning capacity by virtue of harsh criminal sanctions.

The trial judge’s second line of reasoning was that the German tax authorities were in any event closing in on Peters and that he would probably have been arrested if he had not made voluntary disclosure.

The claimant appealed against the judgement.

The appeal court did not accept that the court a quo’s reasoning was wrong. If it appears from evidence that a claimant’s supposed earning capacity would as likely as not have been sterilised and rendered worthless by some or other event over the future period covered by the claim, the court could properly conclude that a claim of diminution in earning capacity has not been established.

In short the appeal court found that the tax evasion in itself did not cause the claimant to fail in its claim, however in casu the tax evasion led to imminent criminal prosecution which precluded the claimant to return to his homeland to continue his business. Thus, it was as a results of the tax evasion that the claimants earning capacity was extinguished and not as a result of the sequlae of the motor vehicle accident.

As observed in Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) paras 11 and 16) para 11, the fact that a physical disability which impacts upon earning capacity also reduces the patrimony of the injured person may follow readily in some cases but it did not follow in all cases, including this one.

Sending us an Instruction

Our dedicated full time professional team receive instructions by any of the following means:

• Email : damagesclaims@iac.co.za, or
• Fax : 086 616 8308

Now for some inspiration –
“If you don’t value your time, neither will others. Stop giving away your time and talents. Value what you know & start charging for it.”
Kim Garst

Advertisements

40% contingency applied on past loss – IAC Newsletter 37/2013, (September 2013)

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the 37th edition of Independent Actuaries & Consultant’s (IAC’s) monthly newsletter.

40% contingency applied on past loss of earnings – Miller v RAF, Western Cape High Court, case no: A 134/2013

This was an appeal against orders in respect of the appellant’s past loss of earnings and future loss of earning capacity.

The amount claimed at trial by the appellant (‘Miller’) for past loss of earnings was R2 099 410.85 and the amount awarded was R90 670.86, the amount claimed for loss of earning capacity was R4.2 million and the amount awarded was nil.

The major part of the claim was based on the consequences of depression suffered by Miller post-collision which affected his ability to properly carry out his work as an architect on a major building project (The Decks) in which he was involved at the time of the collision.

Miller’s case was that his deficient performance on The Decks caused him reputational damage, which in turn impacted negatively on his ability to obtain work on better projects thereafter.

It was not in dispute that prior to the collision Miller was a gifted, accomplished architect with a growing practice of his own and particular expertise in the restoration of historic buildings.

The Decks project was Miller’s brainchild. Miller was severely injured in the collision and was bedridden for a period of three months thereafter at a crucial stage of the project.

Miller’s role was pivotal for the successful advancement of the project as much of the concept was ‘in his head’.

It was Miller’s testimony that The Decks project would have brought him not only professional esteem, but would also have put him on the map for future developments of this nature.

The developer of The Decks testified that Millers lack of performance on The Decks resulted in them refusing to appoint him as an architect on future projects; that word got around in the industry that he had become a high risk architect and this similarly resulted in him not being able to secure remunerative work of the same standard.

Taking these factors into account the court applied a contingency deduction of 40% to the net amount Miller could have earned on work that he would have been appointed on, but for the accident, from the time of the collision to the time of the hearing (past loss of earnings).

The court further held that it was not appropriate to deduct the actual income earned by Miller over the same period as it can be accepted in his favour that he would have been able to accommodate all of the work, given that his actual work over the period was relatively little.

In considering Miller’s R 4.2 million claim for loss of earning capacity the court found it probable that the reputational damage which Miller suffered as a consequence of The Decks is something that he would be able to overcome and accordingly has to be given a diminishing effect over time and the economic decline in the industry would undoubtedly have played a role in Miller’s future earning capacity.

The court awarded an amount of R 250 000.00 in regards to Miller’s claim for loss of earning capacity.

Sending us an Instruction

Our dedicated full time professional team receive instructions by any of the following means: