z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Perspectives on the Termination of Debt Review in Terms of Section 86(10) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Author(s) -
C Van Heerden,
Hermie Coetzee
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
per
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.204
H-Index - 6
ISSN - 1727-3781
DOI - 10.17159/1727-3781/2011/v14i2a2558
Subject(s) - actuary , damages , discretion , plaintiff , duty , actuarial science , law , debt , law and economics , economics , business , political science , finance
In assessing delictual damages the plaintiff is burdened with the duty to prove loss with a preponderance of probability, including uncertain future loss. In quantifying such a claim an actuary is often used to make actuarial calculations based on proven facts and realistic assumptions regarding the future. The role of the actuary is to guide the court in the calculations to be made. Relying on its wide judicial discretion the court will have the final say regarding the correctness of the assumptions on which these calculations are based. The court should give detailed reasons if any assumptions or parts of the calculations made by the actuary are rejected. It should preferably refrain from making its own calculations if an actuary is involved and should rather instruct the actuary to do recalculations if necessary. It does, however, fall within the wide discretion of the court to make a general contingency adjustment after the basic calculations have been accepted. In assessing delictual damages it is the duty of the court to ensure that both objective and subjective factors are considered in such a manner that the assessment may be regarded as an application of "fair" mathematics.    

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here