In a recent court case involving Seneca Civils (Pty) Ltd and Centriq Insurance Company Ltd, the court looked into the rules for creating and signing joint minutes of experts as per the relevant court guidelines issued pursuant to Rule 36(9)a.

Seneca Civils launched an application because Centriq Insurance’s expert refused to sign the draft meeting minutes. Centriq Insurance argued that they couldn’t sign because the draft minutes didn’t accurately reflect what was agreed upon in the expert meeting. They also pointed out that the meeting wasn’t complete because Seneca Civils’ expert hadn’t provided necessary documents.

Centriq suggested having another meeting with the experts, but Seneca argued that not signing or giving feedback on the minutes was stopping them from seeking certification from the court registrar.

After considering the guidelines outlined in the recently introduced Rule 36(9A) of the Uniform Rules, the court ruled that Centriq Insurance didn’t have a legal or factual basis to refuse to sign the draft minutes or provide their own version. The details agreed upon during the meeting should be written down in the minutes. The court stressed that it’s not necessary for both parties to agree on every single aspect discussed in the meeting for the minutes to be executed. They can note their differing views in the minutes, even if there are unresolved issues, as long as each party’s perspective is clear.

Lessons learned:

• Once the expert meeting has been held, it is important to reduce it to writing.
• Any outstanding action emanating from the meeting should be recorded in the joint expert minute. This should not delay the signing or the filing of the meeting minute.
• A party that does not agree with any aspect of the minute should provide comments to the minute or produce his own minute of what occurred in the meeting.