About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 184
|
|
Barnard and Other In re: Registrar of Medical Schemes v Medshield Medical Scheme (56193/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 184 (5 July 2013)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 56193/12
DATE:05/07/2013
In
the matter between:
FRANCOIS
BARNARD
................................................................................
1st Intervening Party
THABO
PANDLETON
MABETA
..................................................................
2nd
Intervening Party
BISNATH
(JAY)
SINGH
..................................................................................
3rd Intervening Party
GAVIN
JOHN
GRIFFIN
...................................................................................
4th
Intervening Party
MICHAEL
WRIGHT
.........................................................................................
5th
Intervening Party
MARK
DAWSON
............................................................................................
6th
Intervening Party
AMELIA
HOLLAND
…..................................................................................
7th
Intervening Party
EBEN
LOFTY VAN
WYK
..............................................................................
8th
Intervening Party
PETRUS
JOHANNES
KRIEL
......................................................................
.9th
Intervening Party
FRANCOIS
ALBERT
PIETERSE
...............................................................
10th Intervening Party
In
re:
THE
REGISTRAR OF MEDICAL
SCHEMES
.............................................
Applicant
and
MEDSHIELD
MEDICAL
SCHEME
.............................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MURPHY
J
1.
The applicants (the intervening parties in the main application)
apply for leave to appeal against my judgment of 25 January
2013
confirming the rule nisi issued by van der Merwe JP on 2 October 2012
and appointing a curator to manage the affairs of the
medical scheme.
2.
The application for leave to appeal sets out a plethora of grounds
upon which leave is sought, many of which misstate or misrepresent
my
findings and raise issues not argued before me.
3.
I am of the opinion that leave to appeal should be granted for the
simple reason that there is a reasonable prospect that another
court
may come to a different conclusion with regard to my finding that
good cause exists for the appointment of a curator. Accordingly,
no
purpose will be served in analysing and commenting upon the various
grounds misstating my findings or raising new issues.
4.
The importance of the matter to all parties and the novelty of the
issues related to the jurisdictional preconditions justify
granting
leave to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
5.
The effect of granting leave is that my order confirming the rule
nisi and appointing the curator will be suspended. The respondent
(the applicant in the main application) did not bring a formal
application in terms of rule 49(11) for the order to remain
effective.
However, counsel for the parties indicated from the bar
their agreement that in the event of leave to appeal being granted
the
order granting a provisional curator and the rule nisi issued by
van der Merwe DJP should be revived and remain effective until
the
appeal is finalised.
7.
Accordingly, the following orders are issued:
i)
The applicants are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal
ii)
The orders of van der Merwe DJP are revived and extended pending the
outcome of the appeal in respect of whether a final order
of
curatorship should be granted.
iii)
The costs of the application for leave to appeal shall be costs in
the appeal.
JR
MURPHY
JUDGE
OF THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
Date
Heard: 30 May 2013
For
the Applicant: Adv M.C. Maritz SC
Instructed
By: Savage, Jooste & Adams Attorneys
For
the Respondent: Adv J.H. Dreyer SC
Instructed
By: Geyser Van Rooyen Attorneys