E M v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Development (Gauteng) (4026/2014) [2020] ZAGPJHC 155 (4 March 2020)

E M v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Development (Gauteng) (4026/2014) [2020] ZAGPJHC 155 (4 March 2020)

The court found that the disputed issues were clearly identifiable from the pre-trial joint minutes and that the respondent was not in breach of Practice Directive 2. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to the relief sought, as the respondent had not withheld or failed to specify the issues in dispute. The application was therefore dismissed. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order, finding no justification for such an order under the circumstances, and limited the costs to those of one counsel.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 155
Parties
Applicant: E M obo K M; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Health and Development (Gauteng)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Case Number
4026/2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Identification of Issues in Dispute Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Senyatsi ML
Legal Topics
Practice Directive 2, Pre Trial Procedure, Identification of Disputes, Medical Negligence
Civil Procedure Delict Practice Directive 2 Pre Trial Procedure Identification of Disputes Medical Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E M obo K M

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council for Health and Development (Gauteng)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Identification of Issues in Dispute Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in breach of Practice Directive 2 by failing to identify the remaining issues in dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondent to specify disputed issues.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disputed issues were clearly identifiable from the pre-trial joint minutes and that the respondent was not in breach of Practice Directive 2. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to the relief sought, as the respondent had not withheld or failed to specify the issues in dispute. The application was therefore dismissed. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order, finding no justification for such an order under the circumstances, and limited the costs to those of one counsel.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of one counsel.