Van Den Berg v Arwyp Medical Centre and Others (12673/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 404 (15 November 2013)

Van Den Berg v Arwyp Medical Centre and Others (12673/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 404 (15 November 2013)

The court found that the plaintiff's Rule 30 application was procedurally defective and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 30(2)(b) and (c), as no proper notice was served and the application was not brought within the prescribed time. The filing of a second exception before the first is heard does not constitute an irregular step, and there is no authority to the contrary. The applicant's remedy was to set the first exception down for hearing. The Rule 30 application was dismissed on the basis of procedural non-compliance and lack of merit.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 404
Parties
Applicant: Maria Elizabeth Van Den Berg; Respondent: Arwyp Medical Centre; Respondent: A J Dyabala; Respondent: Netcare Unitas Hospital; Respondent: Claud Kilian
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Case Number
12673/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 30 Application to Set Aside Alleged Irregular Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jansen
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Exceptions and Pleadings, Notice of Bar, Rule 23 Exception, Failure to Deliver Pleadings
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Exceptions and Pleadings Notice of Bar Rule 23 Exception Failure to Deliver Pleadings

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Elizabeth Van Den Berg

Applicant

Arwyp Medical Centre

Respondent

A J Dyabala

Respondent

Netcare Unitas Hospital

Respondent

Claud Kilian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Rule 30 Application to Set Aside Alleged Irregular Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's Rule 30 application to set aside the first defendant's second exception constitutes a valid procedural step.
  2. 2 Whether the filing of a second exception before the first is heard is an irregular step under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 30(2)(b) and (c).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's Rule 30 application was procedurally defective and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 30(2)(b) and (c), as no proper notice was served and the application was not brought within the prescribed time. The filing of a second exception before the first is heard does not constitute an irregular step, and there is no authority to the contrary. The applicant's remedy was to set the first exception down for hearing. The Rule 30 application was dismissed on the basis of procedural non-compliance and lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Rule 30 application is dismissed, with costs.