Factual causation : one size does not fit all : feature
Jerome Veldsman
Abstract
Jerome Veldsman
Abstract
The judgment of Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 2011 (6) SA 564 (WCC) may be an opportunity missed by both the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) (see Minister of Correctional Services v Lee 2012 (3) SA 617 (SCA)) and the Constitutional Court (CC) (see Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC)) to develop the South African law of delict with regard to factual causation. In the light of four starkly different judgments, namely, one in the High Court; one in the SCA; and two in the Constitutional Court (Nkabinde J and Cameron J), in relation to the same (mainly undisputed) facts, such development seems necessary or at least expedient.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The judgment of Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 2011 (6) SA 564 (WCC) may be an opportunity missed by both the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) (see Minister of Correctional Services v Lee 2012 (3) SA 617 (SCA)) and the Constitutional Court (CC) (see Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC)) to develop the South African law of delict with regard to factual causation. In the light of four starkly different judgments, namely, one in the High Court; one in the SCA; and two in the Constitutional Court (Nkabinde J and Cameron J), in relation to the same (mainly undisputed) facts, such development seems necessary or at least expedient.
Key concepts: Causation, Appeal, Supreme court, Law, High Court, Political science, Relation (database), Constitutional court