Raf Settlement Agreement

“This is also the case when, on average, 99% of cases are resolved without the need to appear before a judge. Most of them are transaction agreements that are made under court orders,” Said Mr. Letsoalo. Undervaluation fees are the highest average claim value of all types of rights reported to the LPIIF. [2] The applicant in the appeal, Ms. M., made a citation on behalf of her minor child against the traffic accident fund (the “RAF”). She found that the child`s father had been killed in a collision on July 6, 2014 and that the only cause of the collision was the negligence of the insured driver. Following the death of the deceased, the complainant argued that the minor child was in need of care and assistance. His loss of assistance was the loss of R$200,000 in past aid and the future loss of R800,000 in aid. That was R1 Million`s request. The RAF defended the case. The trial was set for September 12, 2016. It was sewn on September 13 and September 14, 2016.

It was assigned to the DJP so that it could take over the presidency. When the case was called to trial on September 14, the parties requested that the case be dropped as the parties attempted to resolve the matter. The judge accepted the case, but informed the parties that she was ready to proceed with the trial. The parties returned at 2 p.m. and asked the court to make the settlement agreement (“the agreement”) a court order. The agreement provided that the complainant`s RAF had to pay 100% of its proven or agreed damages. The damage was agreed to the R561 314.63. [67] By the time he returned shortly thereafter, he had completed a complete turning point. He said that he had advised his client to accept the RAF offer and that “reason prevailed”.

As I said before, he had told me that she was tenacious before, that she would only be satisfied with the amount originally discussed (i.e. twice the amount of the settlement offer presented today). He said he now believed it was a fair offer and that he had made a quantum mistake before. De Broglio might certainly believe that he served the interests of his clients and himself to reach a transaction agreement of a grossly excessive amount in circumstances where he avoided the jurisdiction of the Court, but this put them at risk.