Who We Are

Algorithm Consultants & Actuaries CC is a consulting firm based in Johannesburg, South Africa. Our field of expertise is the quantification of damages in personal injury and fatal accident litigation. We are typically instructed by lawyers who are representing the plaintiff or defendant following a motor vehicle accident, train accident, aircraft accident or an incident of medical malpractice.

Our role in these matters is to prepare reports in which we estimate the capital value of the plaintiff’s loss of income, or the loss of support to the dependants of the deceased following a fatal accident. Our reports can also include estimates of the present discounted value of a plaintiff’s future medical and related expenses, based on the evidence of various medical and rehabilitation experts. Sometimes we provide evidence in court.

The principal actuary of Algorithm Consultants & Actuaries CC is Gregory Whittaker.

Download a copy of Gregory’s CV

Why Are Actuaries Required

Nicholas JA explained in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey 1984 1 SA 98 (A) 113H-114E that two possible approaches are available to the court in assessing loss of earnings:
Any enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature speculative … All that the Court can do is to make an estimate, which is often a very rough estimate, of the present value of the loss. It has open to it two possible approaches. One is for the Judge to make a round estimate of an amount which seems to him to be fair and reasonable. That is entirely a matter of guesswork, a blind plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to make an assessment, by way of mathematical calculations, on the basis of assumptions resting on the evidence. The validity of this approach depends of course upon the soundness of the assumptions, and these may vary from the strongly probable to the speculative. It is manifest that either approach involves guesswork to a greater or lesser extent. But the Court cannot for this reason adopt a non possumus attitude and make no award. … In a case where the Court has before it material on which an actuarial calculation can usefully be made, I do not think that the first approach offers any advantage over the second. On the contrary, while the result of an actuarial computation may be no more than an ‘informed guess’, it has the advantage of an attempt to ascertain the value of what was lost on a logical basis; whereas the trial Judge’s ‘gut feeling’ (to use the words of appellant’s counsel) as to what is fair and reasonable is nothing more than a blind guess.