Tshwane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd v Government Employees Medical Scheme (28532/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 72 (20 May 2011)

Tshwane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd v Government Employees Medical Scheme (28532/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 72 (20 May 2011)

The court found that section 59(2) of the Medical Schemes Act, read with the respondent's rules, does not oblige the respondent to pay the applicant directly for goods supplied to its members. The respondent retains discretion to pay either the member or the supplier, and the authorisation process does not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the respondent and the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant failed to allege the terms of any tacit contract in its affidavits, and the facts do not support the inference that the respondent abandoned its statutory and rule-based right to pay members. The application for final relief was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Tshwane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Government Employees Medical Scheme
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Case Number
28532/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought on Notice of Motion; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
B.R. Southwood
Legal Topics
Medical Schemes Act, Interpretation of Statutes, Tacit Contract, Final Relief, Motion Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Medical Schemes Act Interpretation of Statutes Tacit Contract Final Relief Motion Proceedings

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

Parties

Tshwane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Government Employees Medical Scheme

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought on Notice of Motion; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 59(2) of the Medical Schemes Act obliges the respondent to pay the applicant directly for goods supplied to members.
  2. 2 Whether a tacit contract exists between the applicant and respondent obliging direct payment to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 59(2) of the Medical Schemes Act, read with the respondent's rules, does not oblige the respondent to pay the applicant directly for goods supplied to its members. The respondent retains discretion to pay either the member or the supplier, and the authorisation process does not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the respondent and the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant failed to allege the terms of any tacit contract in its affidavits, and the facts do not support the inference that the respondent abandoned its statutory and rule-based right to pay members. The application for final relief was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.