South Africa Case Law

B.E.M v MEC For Health, Free State Provincial Government (104/2018)

B.E.M v MEC For Health, Free State Provincial Government (104/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 164 (12 August 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

104/2018

Judge

GJM Wright

The application for interim payment was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the peremptory requirements of Rule 34A and Rule 35(2), specifically the lack of attached documentary proof and expert reports supporting the claimed damages. The court found that the applicant's reliance on portions of expert reports without annexing them or referencing specific details did not satisfy the procedural requirements. Attempts to hand up affidavits at the hearing were rejected as prejudicial to the respondent and procedurally improper. The court held that the best interests of the chi…

Source excerpt

• Interim Payment
• Medical Negligence
• Rule 34a
• Documentary Proof
• Best Interests Of Child

South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (457/96)

South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (457/96) [1998] ZASCA 12; 1998 (2) SA 1091 (SCA); [1998] 2 All SA 527 (A) (17 March 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

457/96

Judges

Nienaber, Howie, Marais, Plewman, Melunsky

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that supporting documents could be read together to satisfy Article 62(b)(ii) of the Fund Act, and dismissed the appeal.

• Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
• Substantial Compliance
• Documentary Proof
• Multilateral Motor Accidents Fund Act
• Motor-vehicle-accident-claims
• Substantial-compliance