Thabela v Nedgroup Medical Aid Scheme/Medscheme (28173/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 129 (17 April 2019)

Thabela v Nedgroup Medical Aid Scheme/Medscheme (28173/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 129 (17 April 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the elevated threshold for granting leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties, the judge was satisfied that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the damages claim for unlawful disclosure of medical information. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 129
Parties
Plaintiff: Tshidino Thabela; Defendant: Nedgroup Medical Aid Scheme/Medscheme; Defendant: Nedgroup Limited/Nedbank
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Case Number
28173/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Damages Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Unlawful Disclosure of Medical Information, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Unlawful Disclosure of Medical Information Reasonable Prospect of Success

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshidino Thabela

Plaintiff

Nedgroup Medical Aid Scheme/Medscheme

Defendant

Nedgroup Limited/Nedbank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of his damages claim.
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act is met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the elevated threshold for granting leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties, the judge was satisfied that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the damages claim for unlawful disclosure of medical information. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.