English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The law of damages abounds with cases dealing with the collateral source rule. This rule is applicable to instances where the victim of a damagecausing event, despite suing the wrongdoer or his or her insurer for damages, receives a benefit from a third party (Mukheibir ‘Road Accident Fund v Timis – child support grants is not res inter alios acta’ 2011 SALJ 246; see in general Potgieter, Steynberg & Floyd Visser & Potgieter’s Law of Damages (2012) 229-273). However, despite the various case law and commentary in literature on the subject, this concept remains unburdened by clarity. This is particularly true as far as the interpretation and intersection between the application of the rule and social security benefits.

Social security 'benefits' and the collateral source rule - an analysis of the three Coughlan decisions