Browsing by Author "De Vos, Wouter Le R."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Fundamental procedural rights of civil litigants in Australia and South Africa : is there cause for concern? (part 1)
    (2019-07-16) Broodryk, Theo; De Vos, Wouter Le R.
    Op 6 Maart 2019 sterf drie jong dogters op weg na hul skool vir gehoorgestremdes in Durban as ’n taxibestuurder op volle vaart deur ’n rooi verkeerslig jaag en tussen die kinders op die sypaadjie deurploeg. Na berig word, het die bestuurder weggehardloop van die toneel van die ongeluk, maar is later aangekeer. Teen die taxibestuurder word na bewering ongespesifiseerde verkeersoortredings ondersoek - wat mag insluit ’n snelheidsoortreding, die verontagsaming van ’n rooi verkeerslig, roekelose bestuur, of nalate om hulp op ’n ongelukstoneel aan slagoffers te verleen - én moontlik strafbare manslag (Bhengu “Bail for taxi driver who ploughed into teens, killing three” TimesLive in Sunday Times (13-03-2019) 1). Hoekom nie moord nie? Geld vir taxibestuurders in Suid-Afrika, anders as byvoorbeeld in Duitsland (sien 618 hieronder), buitengewone en uitsonderlike verkeersreëls wat insluit straffelose verontagsaming van snelheidsperke, verkeersligte of stoptekens, die arrogante ry oor geelstroke soos ook op voetgangers se sypaadjies, die jaag téén aankomende verkeer en op die teenoorgestelde rybaan? Nog is geen gerapporteerde beslissing aantoonbaar waar ’n Suid-Afrikaanse hof ’n oortreder weens gedrag waaruit afgelei moet word dat die dader met die erns van sy wandade rekening gehou het en hom daarmee versoen het dat dít die dood van onskuldige ander verkeersdeelnemers kan veroorsaak, skuldig bevind het aan moord én dienooreenkomstig lewenslange gevangenisstraf opgelê het nie.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Managerial judging and alternative dispute resolution in Australia : an example for South Africa to emulate. part 1
    (Juta Law, 2017-09-04) De Vos, Wouter Le R.; Broodryk, Theo
    The English common law heritage of the states and territories in Australia (most of which were former British colonies) ensured that these different jurisdictions all embraced the adversarial system of civil litigation. Essentially, this meant that a passive role was accorded to the judge, especially during the pre-trial phase, while the parties, through their lawyers, played an active role during both the pre-trial and trial stages. By virtue of the principle of party control the parties were in charge of preparing their cases for trial and presenting their evidence and arguments at the trial. During the pre-trial phase the judge would react only if a party sought interlocutory relief, and even during the trial the judge assumed the role of a passive arbitrator, only ensuring that the lawyers conducted themselves in a seemly manner and complied with the “rules of the game”.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Managerial judging and alternative dispute resolution in Australia : an example for South Africa to emulate. part 2
    (Juta Law, 2018-01) De Vos, Wouter Le R.; Broodryk, Theo
    The impact of judicial case management and alternative dispute resolution on the fundamental rights of the parties. Traditionally, English common law shied away from recognising the fundamental principles of civil procedural law in the form of basic rights or guarantees accorded to the parties. As Jolowicz aptly remarked, “English law tends rather to take [these guarantees] for granted than to enshrine [them] in a legislative text”. Since this statement was made close to fifty years ago there has been a dramatic change in the English approach. First and foremost, the incorporation into English domestic law of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Human Rights Act resulted in the statutory recognition of fundamental human rights for everyone in England. In the procedural field the adoption of article 6(1) of the convention, providing for a fair trial to litigants, brought about a sea change in civil procedural law.