Preller Plain Apteek v Hesketh; In Re: Hesketh v Preller Plain Apteek (5900/2008) [2018] ZAFSHC 199 (8 November 2018)

Preller Plain Apteek v Hesketh; In Re: Hesketh v Preller Plain Apteek (5900/2008) [2018] ZAFSHC 199 (8 November 2018)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal, including the challenge to hearsay evidence, the reasoning of Dr. Edeling, and credibility findings, had been thoroughly addressed in the original judgment. The respondent's arguments were accepted, particularly regarding the agreement between expert witnesses and the lack of prior epileptic episodes. The court held that no reasonable prospect exists that another court would reach a different conclusion, and there are no conflicting judgments on the matter. The raised bar for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act was not met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Preller Plain Apteek; Respondent: Bernadette Marion Hesketh
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2018
Case Number
5900/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits; Merits and Quantum Previously Separated.
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Hearsay Evidence, Expert Testimony, Credibility Findings
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Hearsay Evidence Expert Testimony Credibility Findings

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Preller Plain Apteek

Applicant

Bernadette Marion Hesketh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits; Merits and Quantum Previously Separated.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the acceptance of hearsay evidence relating to EEG reports was permissible.
  2. 2 Whether the reasoning of Dr. Edeling was flawed and broke the chain of causation.
  3. 3 Whether the credibility findings regarding mutually destructive versions of the parties warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal, including the challenge to hearsay evidence, the reasoning of Dr. Edeling, and credibility findings, had been thoroughly addressed in the original judgment. The respondent's arguments were accepted, particularly regarding the agreement between expert witnesses and the lack of prior epileptic episodes. The court held that no reasonable prospect exists that another court would reach a different conclusion, and there are no conflicting judgments on the matter. The raised bar for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act was not met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused with costs.