B.E.M v MEC For Health, Free State Provincial Government (104/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 164 (12 August 2021)

B.E.M v MEC For Health, Free State Provincial Government (104/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 164 (12 August 2021)

The application for interim payment was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the peremptory requirements of Rule 34A and Rule 35(2), specifically the lack of attached documentary proof and expert reports supporting the claimed damages. The court found that the applicant's reliance on portions of expert reports without annexing them or referencing specific details did not satisfy the procedural requirements. Attempts to hand up affidavits at the hearing were rejected as prejudicial to the respondent and procedurally improper. The court held that the best interests of the child, while paramount, do not justify non-compliance with mandatory rules. The applicant's legal...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 164
Parties
Applicant: B.E.M; Respondent: THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
104/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Payment Under Rule 34 a Pending Final Determination of Quantum in Medical Negligence Action
Outcome
Application for interim payment dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant, with specific directions regarding costs and legal fees.
Judges
GJM Wright
Legal Topics
Interim Payment, Medical Negligence, Rule 34a, Documentary Proof, Best Interests of Child
Civil Procedure Delict Interim Payment Medical Negligence Rule 34a Documentary Proof Best Interests of Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.E.M

Applicant

THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Payment Under Rule 34 a Pending Final Determination of Quantum in Medical Negligence Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with Rule 34A and Rule 35(2) requirements for interim payment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient documentary proof to support the application for interim payment.
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the minor child justify relaxation of procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim payment was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the peremptory requirements of Rule 34A and Rule 35(2), specifically the lack of attached documentary proof and expert reports supporting the claimed damages. The court found that the applicant's reliance on portions of expert reports without annexing them or referencing specific details did not satisfy the procedural requirements. Attempts to hand up affidavits at the hearing were rejected as prejudicial to the respondent and procedurally improper. The court held that the best interests of the child, while paramount, do not justify non-compliance with mandatory rules. The applicant's legal...

Court Disposition

Application for interim payment dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant, with specific directions regarding costs and legal fees.

Orders

  • The application for interim payment is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application, including the costs attendant upon the respondent's opposition, subject to the following: