T.B.S v M.M.S (64229/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1270 (22 December 2017)

T.B.S v M.M.S (64229/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1270 (22 December 2017)

The court found that the Respondent had already registered with a new medical aid, and that the Applicant had notified his own medical aid to terminate the Respondent's membership to comply with statutory requirements. The factual situation had changed since the application was launched, and the court considered the Applicant's affidavit, the notice of motion, the draft order, and heads of argument. The variation of the settlement agreement was necessary to reflect the current reality and to ensure that the Applicant's obligation was limited to payment of the Respondent's medical aid premium, without responsibility for other medical expenses except as may arise during the waiting period....

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1270
Parties
Applicant: T B S; Respondent: M M S
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2017
Case Number
64229/17
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Unopposed Motion
Outcome
Application granted. Paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement is varied to reflect the Respondent's new medical aid membership and the Applicant's revised obligations.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Variation of Settlement Agreement, Medical Aid Obligation, Maintenance, Waiting Period Medical Scheme
Family and Children Variation of Settlement Agreement Medical Aid Obligation Maintenance Waiting Period Medical Scheme

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T B S

Applicant

M M S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Unopposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement should be varied to reflect the Respondent's change of medical aid membership.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant remains liable for the Respondent's medical aid premium after her registration with a new medical aid.
  3. 3 How the waiting period imposed by the new medical aid affects the Applicant's liability for medical expenses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent had already registered with a new medical aid, and that the Applicant had notified his own medical aid to terminate the Respondent's membership to comply with statutory requirements. The factual situation had changed since the application was launched, and the court considered the Applicant's affidavit, the notice of motion, the draft order, and heads of argument. The variation of the settlement agreement was necessary to reflect the current reality and to ensure that the Applicant's obligation was limited to payment of the Respondent's medical aid premium, without responsibility for other medical expenses except as may arise during the waiting period....

Court Disposition

Application granted. Paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement is varied to reflect the Respondent's new medical aid membership and the Applicant's revised obligations.

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement is varied to require the Applicant to pay the Respondent's medical aid premium until she remarries.
  • The Applicant must pay the premium directly to the Respondent from 1 January 2018.