Judge Denise Fisher Fights to Overturn Misconduct Ruling

Johannesburg High Court Judge Denise Fisher is pushing back against a judicial misconduct ruling that found her guilty of overreach in Road Accident Fund (RAF) litigation. Fisher, sanctioned with a reprimand, has launched an appeal to clear her name.

A judicial conduct inquiry in 2024 upheld a complaint from De Broglio Attorneys, a personal injury law firm, which accused Fisher of making adverse findings against them and their expert witnesses without allowing them to respond. The complaint also stated that she had reported them to professional bodies without due process.

While the inquiry upheld the complaint, Judge Jeremiah Shongwe ruled that Fisher’s actions were not wilful or grossly negligent. However, he maintained that she should have given the attorneys and their expert witnesses an opportunity to be heard before reporting them.

Fisher has now appealed to the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC), arguing that Shongwe misinterpreted the law. She insists that since he did not find her conduct to be wilful or grossly negligent, he had no basis to find her guilty under the Judicial Service Commission Act.

She also pointed out that the original complaint had been dismissed by Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, who ruled that it was related to her judgments and that the JSC was not the appropriate forum for grievances from dissatisfied litigants.

However, De Broglio Attorneys successfully appealed Mlambo’s decision, leading to a full inquiry into Fisher’s conduct. Fisher now argues that Shongwe misread the appeals committee’s ruling and reached an incorrect conclusion.

The controversy stems from two RAF cases Fisher presided over in 2021. The claims, brought by De Broglio Attorneys on behalf of Marilyn Doris Taylor and Hlengani Victor Mathonsi, were presented for court approval after being settled.

Fisher refused to approve the settlements, citing procedural irregularities, significant errors in actuarial calculations, and questionable medical assessments. She noted that the expert witnesses used in both cases contradicted each other, raising concerns about the validity of the claims.

In Taylor’s case, the initial claim of just over R1 million was suddenly increased to R3.3 million days before the trial, without proper notification. Similarly, in Mathonsi’s case, the claim amount doubled in the final days before trial, despite his own medical expert stating he did not qualify for general damages.

Fisher raised concerns about the integrity of the settlements, but De Broglio Attorneys insisted she had no authority to question them. When the firm requested the cases be removed from her roll, she instead issued a judgment referring the attorneys and their expert witnesses to professional bodies.

Fisher maintains that her actions were legally justified and required under judicial oversight. She argues that courts have a duty to ensure that settlements comply with the law, particularly in cases involving public funds.

She also cited a directive in the Gauteng High Court that requires judges to scrutinize RAF settlements, especially when the RAF lacks legal representation, as was the case in both matters.

Her appeal will be heard on April 9 and 10, where she hopes to overturn the finding against her and restore her judicial record.

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com

Orignally Published: GroundUp