Distinguishing Between Private Law and Social-Security Law in Deducting Social Grants from Claims for Loss of Support


  • L Steynberg University of South Africa




social-security law, social grants, child-support grant, foster-care grant, double dipping, double compensation, compensating advantages, collateral-source rule.


This article attempts to highlight the potential danger in applying private-law principles to social-security law in deciding whether or not social grants should be deducted from awards for damages. Typically, this issue comes to the fore where a damage-causing event, such as death, sets into motion a system that provides for the payment of social benefits, damages or both. In social-security law, the receipt of more than one social benefit is called "double dipping", whereas in private law the problem of double compensation is addressed by applying the collateral-source rule. In some instances the applicable legislation clearly prescribes the deduction or not of the social benefit, but unfortunately our legislation is not always clear on this issue and this can best be illustrated by two recent conflicting decisions in Makhuvela (SGHC) and Timis (SCA). In Makhuvela the court held that a foster-care grant should be disregarded in calculating the award for damages, inter alia because the child will never have a claim to the grant. In Timis the SCA distinguished the facts from Makhuvela and held that the child-support grants received by the mother after the father's death are directly linked to the death of the father and should therefore be deducted from her claim for loss of support. It is submitted that although the outcome of the Timis decision is correct, the court should have incorporated the means test into the process of deciding if the grant should be deducted from the compensation. A two-phase approach is suggested: first determine if the receipt of the grant is directly linked to the death of the breadwinner, and secondly determine how the grant and the subsequent settlement paid by a wrongdoer will affect the circumstances of a particular individual or family. The objectives in social-security law differ from the objectives in the law of damages and therefore the principles applied in cases of double dipping cannot be equated with those applied in cases of collateral benefits.


Google_Scholar_129.png   ScienceOpen_Log0362.png


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...



Bloembergen Schadevergoeding

Bloembergen AR Schadevergoeding bij Onrechtmatige Daad (Kluwer Deventer 1965)

Boberg Law of Delict

Boberg PQR The Law of Delict: Vol 1 Aquilian Liability (Juta Cape Town 1984)

Du Plessis Introduction to Law

Du Plessis L An Introduction to Law (Juta Cape Town 1999)

ILO Social Security

International Labour Organisation Introduction to Social Security (ILO Geneva 1989)

Koch Reduced Utility

Koch RJ The Reduced Utility of a Life Plan (LLD thesis US Stellenbosch 1993)

McKerron Delict

McKerron RG The Law of Delict 7th ed (Juta Cape Town 1971)

Millard "Law of Third Party Compensation"

Millard D "Law of Third Party Compensation and Insurance Law" (Unpublished paper read at the University of Johannesburg's Annual Banking Law Update 21 April 2010 Johannesburg)

Neethling and Potgieter Delict

Neethling J and Potgieter JM Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2010)

Olivier, Smit and Kalula Social Security

Olivier MP, Smit N and Kalula ER Social Security: A Legal Analysis (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2003)

Plamondon Actuarial Practice

Plamondon P et al Actuarial Practice in Social Security (ILO Geneva 2002)

Strydom Social Security

Strydom EML (ed) Essential Social Security Law (Juta Cape Town 2001)

Van der Walt 1980 THRHR

Van der Walt CFC "Die voordeeltoerekeningsreël - 'n knooppunt van uiteenlopende teorieë oor die oogmerk met skadevergoeding" 1980 THRHR 1-26

Van der Walt and Midgley Delict

Van der Walt JC and Midgley JR Principles of Delict 3rd ed (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2004)

Van Niekerk 2009 JILB

Van Niekerk JP "Makhuvela v Road Accident Fund" 2009 JILB 146-147

Visser and Potgieter Law of Damages

Visser PJ and Potgieter JM Visser and Potgieter's Law of Damages 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2003)

Register of court cases

Hodgson v Trapp 1988 3 All ER 870 (HL)

Indrani v African Guarantee and Indemnity Co Ltd 1968 2 SA 606 (D)

Makhuvela v Road Accident Fund 2010 1 SA 29 (SGHC)

Mankayi v Anglo Gold Ashanti Ltd 40/10 2011 ZACC 3 (3 March 2011)

Ngcobo v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1994 2 SA 478 (T)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: in re ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa 2000 3 BCLR 241 (CC)

Road Accident Fund v Monjane 2010 3 SA 641 (SCA)

Road Accident Fund v Timis 29/09 2010 ZASCA 30 (26 March 2010)

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy v Byleveldt 1973 2 SA 146 (A)

Standard General Insurance Co Ltd v Dugmore 1997 1 SA 33 (A)

Zysset v Santam Ltd 1996 1 SA 273 (C)

Register of legislation

Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956

Assessment of Damages Act 9 of 1969

Children's Act 33 of 1960

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (as amended by Act 19 of 2005)

Social Assistance Act 13 of 2004

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 of 1952 (ILO)

Register of policy documents

Draft Policy on the Restructuring of the Road Accident Fund as a Compulsory Social Insurance in Relation to the Comprehensive Social Security System (Gen N 121 in GG 32940 of 12 February 2010)



How to Cite

Steynberg, L. (2017). Distinguishing Between Private Law and Social-Security Law in Deducting Social Grants from Claims for Loss of Support. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 14(4), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2011/v14i4a2590




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.