Articles

The new firm made no contact with our firm at all. It proceeded, through the claims canvasser, to inform Mr T and his nephew that the money due to Mr T would be paid over to the nephew to manage these funds on his behalf, by virtue of the fact that he is assisted by the nephew because of him  being unemployed. On two occasions the claims canvasser arrived at the home of Mr T's nephew and presented him with documents to sign. These documents were signed at the instance of the claims handler who purportedly explained to the nephew the contents of these documents. Unbeknown to the nephew of Mr T these documents were sworn affidavits testifying to the fact that Mr T sustained head injuries in the accident and that as a result was unable to manage his own affairs and that a curator should be appointed to manage the funds and the action. I will return to these documents later.

The claims handler accompanied Mr T to a doctor at the public hospital in Natalspruit. Mr T also attended the offices of a clinical psychologist being a Caucasian lady. Certain questions were asked of Mr T by the doctor in his language. There was no interpreter present at the offices of the clinical psychologist. Mr T claims that because of the language barrier if he was unable to communicate with the clinical psychologist.

Just two weeks ago, our firm received a letter from Mr T's new attorney. This letter draws our attention to the fact that an advocate of the High Court has been appointed by the Court as curator to Mr T who is unable to manage his own affairs due to him having sustained a head injury in an accident which occurred on a date different to the date upon which we were advised by Mr T the accident had occurred. Our attention was drawn to the fact that we were not to take heed of any mandate or instructions given to us by Mr T and that we must submit our file to these attorneys so that the advocate appointed by the Court could assess the matter properly. At no stage prior to the receipt of this letter had we received any inkling that Mr T had instructed another firm of attorneys to act for him. We were surprised that we were not shown the courtesy of being requested to submit our account for payment. We knew of no head injury sustained by Mr T and a re-examination of our records including the medico legal reports of two specialist medical practitioners did not reveal the existence of any head injury.

We immediately telephoned the new attorney. Initially he claimed to have no knowledge about the matter and undertook to draw his file and revert to us that this would not happen for at least two days as he was heavily engaged in a big trial in the High Court. When confronted about why we were not asked to submit our account, or why we would not advised prior to the grant of the Court Order of the fact that his firm had now received instructions to act, he avoided submitting any answer to these questions.

He refused to give us the telephone details of the advocate appointed, undertaking to revert to us with this information urgently. We have heard nothing further since from this attorney in breach of his undertakings. We uplifted a copy of the application to court which made interesting reading. A copy of the accident report attached to the application revealed that the accident about which the new attorney was concerned occurred on the same date as the accident on which we were instructed and in fact was the very self same accident. Somewhat disingenuously, the date of the accident referred to by the new attorney, was exactly one year later when the accident in which Mr T was injured. We have no doubt that the new attorney will claim that his statement incorrect date was merely a typographical error. Surprisingly, copies of the medical records and clinical notes confirming the injuries sustained by Mr T were not attached to the application. There existed two short affidavits, one from the orthopaedic surgeon who claims to have examined Mr T and who concludes that because he was confused, he must have sustained a head injury and could not manage his own affairs. He did not mention perusing the medical records and clinical notes. Even more interesting, is the short affidavit from the clinical psychologist. She also makes no reference to the existence of the medical records and clinical notes. She claims to have examined Mr T that he told her he had sustained a head injury and on the basis of this information she concluded that he was incapable of managing its own affairs.

Back to Articles