Court rules Verulam law firm liable for negligence in Road Accident Fund claim

The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban has ruled that a Verulam-based law firm is liable for professional negligence after allowing a man's Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim to lapse, bringing an end to a legal battle that stemmed from a crash more than 31 years ago.

The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban has ruled that a Verulam-based law firm is liable for professional negligence after allowing a man's Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim to lapse , bringing an end to a legal battle that stemmed from a crash more than 31 years ago.

Judge Hlatshwayo dismissed RK Nathallal and Company's special plea that the claim had expired and found the firm liable to compensate Dean Ramballi for all damages he can prove at a later stage.

The case arose from a motor vehicle collision in March 1995, when Ramballi was still a minor. He suffered serious head injuries after being flung from a vehicle and striking his head on the road. His father, Harrinarain Ramballi, approached RK Nathallal and Company in May 1996 to pursue compensation from the then Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, the predecessor to the RAF.

The firm lodged the claim in March 1997 and later issued summons against the RAF in March 2001. However, according to the judgment, the firm failed to obtain the necessary medico-legal reports, failed to take meaningful steps to prosecute the action and ultimately allowed the claim to lapse.

For years, Ramballi's father repeatedly sought updates from the attorneys and was assured that the matter was still progressing.

According to the judgment, the firm led the family to believe that the RAF claim was actively proceeding and pending in court . They repeatedly reassured the father and kept him under the impression that the case was still alive, despite taking no actual steps to pursue it after 2001 and allowing the claim to lapse.

Frustrated by the delays, he lodged complaints with the Law Society, but the firm submitted affidavits and responses to the Law Society falsely claiming that the matter was still alive and being dealt with .

Believing the attorneys had mishandled the case, Ramballi eventually sued the firm in 2010 for professional negligence.

The firm attempted to escape financial accountability by arguing that Ramballi’s negligence claim against the attorneys was late . They contended that Ramballi should have realised "something was wrong" as far back as 2001 due to the lack of progress updates, or in 2004 when a separate, subsequent minor accident claim was settled within a single year.

Judge Hlatshwayo rejected these arguments, emphasising that a lay person who trusted their legal representative could not be expected to know their claim had lapsed when the attorneys actively assured them and the Law Society that the case was progressing in court.

The court found that Ramballi only acquired actual knowledge of the firm's legal failure in 2010 after consulting new legal representatives at Gowans and Paton, who uncovered the truth and instituted the current action.

The court found that in professional negligence cases, expiry does not begin simply because a client suspects something is wrong.