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
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAGPPHC 65
|
|
Board of Healthcare Funders v Discovery Health Medical Scheme and Others (35769/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 65 (15 May 2012)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT.
PRETORIA
/ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE
NO: 35769/2010
DATE:15/05/2012
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN:
BOARD
OF HEALTHCARE
FUNDERS
...................................................................
APPLICANT
AND
DISCOVERY
HEALTH MEDICAL SCELEME
..............................................
1st RESPONDENT
DISCOVERY
HEALTH (PTY)
LTD
..............................................................
2nd RESPONDENT
COUNCIL
FOR MEDICAL
SCHEMES
......................................................
3RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KOLLAPEN.
J
[1]
This is an application brought by the applicant in terms of the
Copyright Act 98 of 1978 ("the Act") against the first
and
second respondents. The applicant seeks as against the first and
second respondents the following relief:
1.
restraining the second respondent from infringing the copyright of
the applicant in the Practice Code Numbering System ("PCNS")
in the course of its business by using it and thereby reproducing
and/or publishing and/or making adaptations of it in any manner
without the written consent of the applicant;
2.
restraining the first respondent from causing and/or aiding and/or
letting the second respondent to infringe the copyright of
the
applicant in the PCNS;
3.
directing the first respondent and the second respondent to deliver
up to the applicant all data bases, records and/or documents
which
incorporate the PCNS or any part, adaptations or infringing copies
thereof, in whatever form or storage medium there may
exist, which
are in their possession or under their control; and
4.
directing the first respondent and the second respondent to pay to
the applicant a reasonable royalty in terms of section 24(1
A) of the
Copyright Act for
the period 1 January 2010 to the date on which the
first and second respondent cease infringing the copyright of the
applicant
in the PCNS, said reasonable royalty to be calculated at
the rate of Rl,30 per principal member of the first respondent per
annum
until 31 December 2010 and, thereafter, at the standard rate of
payment per principal member per annum which will be paid by members
of the applicant to the applicant;
5.
alternatively to paragraph 4 above, directing that:
5.1
an enquiry be held in terms of
section 24(1B)
of the
Copyright Act 98
of 1978
into a reasonable royalty to be awarded to the applicant
and/or the damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the first
and/or second respondent's infringement of the applicant's copyright;
and
5.2
should the parties be unable to reach agreement as to the future
pleadings to be filed, discovery, inspection or other matters
of
procedure relating to the enquiry, either of the parties may make
application to this court for directions in regard thereto.
The
applicant also seeks cost of the application as against the first and
second respondents including the cost of two counsel.
The
parties
[2]
The applicant is a non-profit organisation which has been constituted
as a representative association of the majority of medical
aid
schemes in South Africa.
2.1
The applicant manages and is responsible for the creation and for the
administration and the use of the PCNS by all South African
medical
schemes and medical health or healthcare service providers.
2.2
The applicant has been approved by the third respondent to allot
practice code numbers to healthcare providers in terms of the
regulations under the
Medical Schemes Act 31 of 1998
.
[3]
The first respondent is a medical scheme with the second respondent
being its administrator. The first respondent was a member
of the
applicant but resigned with effect from 1 January 2010.
The
applicant's case in summary and the respondents' defences in summary
[4]
The applicant's case in brief is that it is the owner of copyright in
the PCNS and that the first and second respondents continue,
despite
the first respondent's resignation as a member of the applicant to
use the PCNS including both the PCNS numbers and associated
data in
the course of their business. The applicant contends that by doing so
the respondents reproduce and/or adapt the work or
substantial parts
of it without authority and by so doing infringe the applicant's
copyright in the PCNS.
[5]
The first and second respondent in opposition to the relief sought by
the applicant have raised various defences and they include:
(a)
that no copyright can be said to exist in the work that the applicant
seeks to make the subject-matter of its claim in terms
of the
Copyright Act;
(b
)
that if copyright could be said to exist in respect of the work the
applicant has not demonstrated that it is indeed the author
of the
work;
(c)
that if copyright should subsist in the work it is not the applicant
who owns the copyright but the State who is the owner of
such
copyright;
(d)
that if it is found that copyright subsists in the work and that the
applicant is the author of the work then the respondents
are entitled
to use the work on the basis of an implied perpetual licence;
(e)
alternatively that the respondents are entitled to use the work in
respect of a continued licence on the basis that they paid
for it and
would therefore be entitled to use it; and
(f)
the respondents deny that in the event it be found that the applicant
is the author of the work that there was any infringement
as
contemplated in the Act in respect of the work.
The
background to the dispute
[6]
The Practice Code Numbering System ("PCNS") comprises a set
or compilation of numbers or codes which relate to and
identify all
of the medical practitioners and medical service providers in private
practice in South Africa together with associated
related data.
[7]
In the PCNS every service provider and practice has been allocated a
unique identifying number which is referred to as the Practice
Code
Number (PCN).
[8]
The PCNS also includes, which is linked to each PCN, personal data
covering a variety of fields which include the name, address,
contact
particulars and bank details of each practitioner and practice and
issues such as preferred payment method, preferred method
of
communication and whether the practitioner dispenses medicines. This
information is broadly referred to as the PCNS data.
[9]
The PCN appears to be an integral part of the PCNS data and as it
were is what unlocks the data.
[10]
The PCNS is used by all medical aid schemes in order to deal with
claims processing and is an essential tool in verifying the
registration and discipline of a practitioner in order to facilitate
payment, to prevent fraud and to verify that a claimant is
claiming
an amount within his or her scope of practice and discipline.
[11]
The issue of practice code numbers ("PCN") is regulated by
the general regulations promulgated in terms of the
Medical Schemes
Act 131 of 1998
.
Regulation 1
of the regulations promulgated in terms
of Government Notice R1262 in Government Gazette 205565 of 20 October
1999, provides that
a practice code number is "a number allotted
to a supplier of a relevant health service as a practice number by an
organisation
or body approved by council".
[12]
Regulation 5
of the same regulations further provides that accounts
submitted by suppliers of services must contain a defined list of
information
including the surname and initials of the member of the
patient, the name of the medical scheme, the membership number, the
practice
code number and such other information set out in the
regulation. It accordingly follows that in order for a practitioner
to submit
a claim the claim would have to comply with the
requirements of
regulation 5.
The regulations also provide for the
appointment of a body or organisation approved by council to allot
practice code numbers to
suppliers of relevant health services.
[13]
On 20 January 2003 the third respondent (which is the council
referred to in the regulations) appointed the applicant as the
body
that would allot practice code numbers. This appointment was for a
period of three years and was subsequently renewed and
it is common
cause that in respect of the time frame of this dispute the applicant
is in fact the body or organisation approved
by the third respondent
to allot practice code numbers.
[14]
The approval of the applicant by the third respondent and the terms
and conditions under which the applicant was so approved
is regulated
by a written agreement entered into between the applicant and the
third respondent,
[15]
The main features of that written agreement include the following:
(a)
the objective of the agreement is to promote uniform, national and
legally constituted health service provider identifier for
billing
purpose for approval of an organisation or body approved by council
to allot practice code numbers to health care providers.
The
users of PCN is defined as anyone who uses the PCN and who benefits
from it.
(b)
Some of the relevant principles contained in the agreement include a
provision that access to and utilisation of the practice
code numbers
by providers shall be transparent, fair and equitable.
(c)
The principles also affirm that the applicant is the exclusive
property owner of the PCNS and further provides that ownership
of the
provider registry of the PCN data base falls under the council.
(d)
The agreement further provides for the applicant to submit an annual
report to the third respondent on financial matters and
statistical
information pertaining to the PCNS. In addition it has to put in
place an accounting system for the purposes of management
of
financial transactions of the PCNS.
(e)
The written agreement also provides that all the users of the PCNS
shall contribute towards the running and maintenance of the
system
and in this regard provides that a transparent fee structure shall be
determined by the applicant.
(f)
The agreement provides that the applicant shall gather the following
minimum data from providers in order to facilitate the
administrative
and statistical obligations required by the PCNS: name of provider or
licence entity
•
practice
code number
•
professional
number or number from licencing authority
•
provider
discipline organisation
membership
of manage care organisation address - postal and physical contact
details banking details VAT registration and company
registration
number dispensing licence.
(g)
The principles contained in the agreement also include a warranty
that the applicant has demonstrable capacity to administer
the
function and to demonstrate ownership of or licence to use the
applicable practice code numbering system.
[16]
The PCNS comprises a set or compilation of numbers or codes which
relate to and identify all the medical practitioners and
medical
service providers in private practice in South Africa together with
the related data.
[17]
The PCNS was developed over a long period of time commencing in the
1960's and there were three distinct phases in its development.
The
first phase
[18]
The first phase commenced in the 1960's under the supervision of what
was known as the Statutory Organisation of Medical Schemes
("SOMS")
which later changed its name to Bestmed Medical Scheme. During the
first phase of the development of the PCNS
a system was created
consisting of numbers comprising seven digits. The first two digits
indicated the specific discipline in which
the practitioner was
involved. The following four digits made up a sequence for the
service providers in the discipline while the
last digit was a check
digit based on the modulus 11 algorithm.
The
second phase
[19]
During March 1978 SOMS and the Representative Association of Medical
Schemes ("RAMS") entered into an agreement relating
to the
future administration of the PCNS by RAMS in terms of which RAMS was
responsible for the continued issuing of practice numbers
forming
part of the PCNS. During the period 1978 to 2000 the PCNS continued
to be expanded by the inclusion of new service providers
but it soon
became evident that the seven digit PCN would have its own
limitations with the increasing number of practitioners
that needed
to be included on the system.
[20]
It warrants mention that certain members of RAMS broke away to form
an association called the South African Medical Schemes
Association
and that in order to advance and unify the two bodies that then
existed a new entity was formed which was the Board
of Healthcare
Funders of South Africa which in time established itself as the Board
of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa and
which is the current
applicant in this application.
[21]
By about 2000 the sequence of numbers and the system that was in
place was rapidly approaching maximum capacity and this led
to the
development of a thirteen digit PCN which was structured as follows:
the first three digits reflected a specific discipline
of the
practitioner, the following three digits reflect the sub-discipline
of the practitioner, the following six digits reflected
the
sequential number allocated to the practitioner while the last digit
in the sequence was a check number devised in accordance
with an
algorithmic formula.
[22]
The PCNS has over time increased. While in 1978 the PCNS comprised of
about 9 000 individual codes and sets of data this increased
to 22
677 by the end of 1993 and this has in turn increased to
approximately 91 000 at the present time.
[23]
The applicant contends that the time, effort and money expended by
itself and its various predecessors over the years (SOMS/Bestmed)
has
been extensive and has required the efforts of many employees of the
various entities involved over the years.
[24]
In addition to the above the applicant to the extent that it is
necessary relies on an agreement of assignment between Bestmed
Medical Schemes and itself dated 9 June 2005 with regard to the
copyright in the PCNS up to the end of phase 1.
[25]
In respect of phase 2 (the period between 1978 and 1993) it appears
that an entity known as Universal Computer Services (Pty)
Ltd ("UCS")
assisted the applicant with regard to converting the data that it had
compiled into computer readable (electronic)
form. It also appears
that Universal allocated blocks of sequential numbers according to
the PCN formula and system. With regard
to the second phase it is the
applicant's contention that Universal did the work that it was
required to do in accordance with
the applicant's specific formula
and directions and to this extent the applicant contends that it was
the author of the PCN component
of the work in terms of the
provisions of the definition of "author" in the
Copyright
Act. On
account of this it submits that it owns this portion of the
copyright. In any event and to the extent that it may be considered
that Universal was the author or joint author of the practice code
numbers the applicant relies on a copy of an assignment agreement
entered into between the UCS Group Limited and itself dated 17 June
2010.
[26]
Finally in respect of the period 1994 onwards it is the applicant's
case that all arrangements necessary for the creation of
the PCNS
were undertaken and performed by the employees of the applicant under
contracts of service in the course and scope of
their employment.
[27]
It is thus the applicant's stance that regard being had to the
definition of "author"
in the Act as being defined as
"in relation to............... musical or artistic works means
the person who first makes or
creates the work", it is for all
intents and purposes the author of the work.
[28]
The respondents dispute the factual averments with regard to the
applicant's authorship of the work. It must be evident, however,
that
at the very least the agreements of assignment between SOMS and the
applicant and thereafter between the UCS and the applicant
and the
fact that in the third phase of the development of the system all
activities took place under the direct supervision and
control of the
applicant must compellingly point in the direction that the applicant
indeed at least on this basis was the author
of the work as
contemplated in the Act.
[29]
The respondents' next attack on the relief the applicant seeks is
that the applicant has failed to demonstrate as is required
in terms
of section 2(1) of the Act that the work is original and that failing
the proof of originality the work cannot be rendered
eligible for
copyright. In this regard it is the respondents' stance that the work
simply consists of a compilation of numbers
and data which data the
respondents contend was in any event in the public domain and that on
account of that it could hardly be
said that the work is original.
[30]
In Haupt t/a Soft Copy v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd &
Others
[2006] ZASCA 40
;
2006 4 SA 458
(SCA) the Supreme Court of Appeal accepted the
British approach to the concept of originality as the correct one and
set out more
fully in the matter of Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William
Hill (Football) Ltd
[1964] 1 WLR 273
(HL).
In
the judgment of Lord PEARCE at p479H-I the following appears:
"The
words 'literary work1 included compilation. They are used to describe
work which is expressed in print or writing irrespective
of whether
it has any excellence of quality or style of writing. The word
'original' does not demand original or inventive work
but only that
the work should not be copied and should originate from the author.
In deciding therefore whether work in the nature
of a compilation is
original, it is wrong to start by considering individual parts of it
apart from the whole as the appellants
in the argument sought to do.
For many compilations have nothing original in their parts, yet the
sum total of the compilation
may be original."
In
the context of the current application there is little doubt that
what the applicant seeks to protect is indeed a compilation
in so far
as it consists of the combination of a series of digits to form the
PCN coupled with the data which then in its totality
forms the PCNS.
There is little doubt if regard be had to the work and energy put in
over the three phases of the development of
the PCNS that indeed
while some of the component parts may not necessarily be original in
its totality the work could be said to
be original. It would be
cynical to suggest that no effort or skill was expanded in the
development of the system over the years
and in my view the
respondents' stance that the work lacks originality must be dismissed
in the light of the meaning that has"
come to be attached to the
concept of originality in the case law developed over the years. In
this regard the dicta in CCH Canadian
Ltd v Law Society of Upper
Canada
2004 SCC 13
;
[2004] 1 SCR 339
relied upon in the Haupt matter supra
indicates that
"An
original work must be the product of an author's exercise of skill
and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required
to produce
the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterised as a
purely mechanical exercise. While greater works
will by definition be
original and covered by copyright, creativity is not required to make
a work original."
[31]
In the matter of Payen Components SA Ltd v Bovic CC & Others
[1995] ZASCA 57
;
1995
4 SA 441
the Appellate Division upheld a claim for breach of
copyright in relation to a numbering system identifying a range of
gaskets
in use in South Africa and in Bosal Africa (Pty) Ltd v
Grapnel (Pty) Ltd & Another
1985 4 SA 482
(C) the court also
upheld a claim for breach of copyright in relation to a part
numbering code compiled in the plaintiffs price
list and catalogue.
[32]
In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicants have
demonstrated that the compilation and indeed the work in its
entirety
is an original work and indeed that they are the authors of the work.
State
copyright
[33]
The respondents contend that to the extent that the PCNS has been
developed in terms of a directive by the state and that its
content
is determined by regulations issued in terms of the Medical Schemes
Act copyright in the PCNS subsists in the state. In
this regard they
seek to rely on the affidavit of Dr Gantsho who is the CEO of the
third respondent in which affidavit he denies
that copyright subsists
in the practice code numbers and alternatively in which he denies
that the applicant is the copyright owner.
[34]
The applicant contends that firstly Dr Gantsho is not competent to
express an opinion with regard to the issue of copyright
ownership or
indeed copyright infringement and that in any event his affidavit is
at odds with the express terms of the agreement
entered into between
the applicant and the third respondent with regard to the allotment
of practice code numbers. In that agreement
the third respondent
expressly recognises that the applicant is the exclusive property
owner of the practice code numbering system.
The reference to
ownership of the provider registry in that agreement which falls
under the third respondent is a separate though
related matter but
the applicant contends that the agreement specifically recognises the
applicant's right in this regard and that
Dr Gantsho's affidavit is
at odds with both the express terms of the agreement as well as the
basis of the appointment of the applicant
by the third respondent as
the organisation identified to allot practice code numbers.
[35]
The question of whether copyright vests in the state would depend on
the interpretation of section 5(2) of the Act which provides
that
copyright shall be conferred by this section on every work which is
eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the
direction or
control of the state or such international organisations as may be
prescribed. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Biotech
Laboratories (Pty)
Ltd v Beecham Group Pic & Another
2002 4 SA 429
(SCA) had to
consider the question of copyright vesting in the state in the
context of a package insert for a pharmaceutical product.
[36]
Mr Justice HARMS laid down the following test to be applied when
considering whether copyright vests in the state:
"The
production of the work needs to be the principal object of state
direction and control and not merely an incidental or
peripheral
consequence of some generalised governmental licensing or monitoring
power; the direction and control should be directly
and specifically
expressed with respect to the work in question and should not be
inferred from the fact of some residual or ultimate
government veto.
On the facts of this case the MCC did not control the making of the
work or the intellectual effort involved in
his genesis; it
controlled its fate to the extent that it had to determine ...
whether the insert complied with regulations. Its
statutory function
is to control the sale of medicines and not to be the controlling
mind behind the creation of the insert. An
editor is not an author
and even if the meaning of the word is always another word control
does not mean co-operation or consultation,
at least not in the
present context."
[37]
These remarks are apposite in this matter. While the applicant had to
develop a system that complied with the regulations issued
in terms
of the
Medical Schemes Act t
he manner in which it did so was
ultimately within its own control and it could hardly be said that
the state saw the production
and the development of the PCNS as the
principal object of state direction and control. At best it was
incidental to governmental
licensing and monitoring power. In the
circumstances and if regard be had to the written agreement entered
into between the applicant
and the third respondent to which
reference has already been made as well as the test laid down in
Biotech I am not satisfied that
the respondent has demonstrated on a
balance of probabilities that copyright in the work subsists in the
State.
Implied
perpetual licence
[38]
It is evident from the agreement between the applicant and the third
respondent that having been identified as the body to
allot practice
code numbers it would be entitled to charge a user fee for all users
of the PCNS and that it must have been in the
contemplation of the
first and second respondents who were for long periods members of the
applicant that such user fees was both
permissible in law but also
necessary for the efficient functioning of the applicant in
particular its financial integrity and
financial stability. The
suggestion that the respondent had an implied perpetual licence to
use the data militates against the
total architecture of the
arrangements entered into between the applicant and the third
respondent and is also not supported by
the first respondent's own
conduct during its membership of the applicant, paying a user fee in
respect of the PCNS.
Continued
licence
[39]
The respondent contends that to the extent that it did pay for the
data during its tenure as a member of the applicant it is
entitled to
continue using the information therein ad infinito. In this regard
the respondent likens its stance in respect of this
defence to the
use of a telephone directory in respect of which and purports to rely
on the work of Coping [Coping & Skone
James on Copyright at para
7-51 (p420)]. However the learned authors say the following with
regard to use and infringement:
"A
person may therefore use a work such as a directory to contact the
listed names as many times as he wishes. If however in
the course of
doing so or afterwards he writes down or makes some other record of
the substantial amount of the information obtained
from the
plaintiffs work, then he is liable to infringe."
[40]
On the papers before me and it is hardly in dispute that beyond using
the data, the respondents copied and reproduced the data
and
therefore the attempt by the respondents to rely on the concept of
continued licence is misplaced as the factual averments
which are
largely uncontested in this regard hardly support the defence of a
continued licence. For these reasons I am of the view
that there is
no merit in this line of defence as well.
Infringement
[41]
Section 6 of the Act provides that:
"Copyright
in literary or musical work vests the exclusive right to do or to
authorise the doing of any of the following acts
in the Republic (a)
reproducing the work in any manner or form;"
[42]
There is accordingly a prohibition on reproducing the work in any
manner or form and in the respondents' opposing affidavit
it says the
following with regard to its operations in relation to the work:
"It
is correct that while the first respondent was a member of the BHF,
the second respondent received information from the
applicant (and
this continued during 2009, the period in which the first
respondent's membership of the BHF is in dispute). The
second
respondent would receive on a weekly basis what is called a delta
file containing information relating to changes of medical
practitioners as explained more fully in Mr Malan's affidavit filed
evenly herewith. All the second respondent did with such files
was to
extract the portion of the information from those files and to import
such information into the relevant fields within the
Discovery data
base."
From
the above it is evident that the respondent certainly on its own
version extracted a portion of the data that it received from
the
applicant and imported that into its own data base. It does not say
what portion. In this regard the applicant's attorneys
addressed the
question about this to the respondents' attorneys on 20 September
2010 enquiring precisely how much of the data was
extracted over the
years. There appears to have been no response to this particular
question.
[43]
Under these circumstances the only inference that is open to be drawn
is that indeed the respondent used a substantial part
of the
information that it received from the applicant. On the proven facts
it is indeed the only inference that is capable of
being drawn and it
is based substantially on the admission made by the respondent
alluded to above as well as its failure to expressly
deal with the
letter dispatched by the applicant's attorneys requesting exactly how
much data was extracted over the years. See
in this regard R v Blom
1939 AD pi 88 at p202-203.
[44]
Under the circumstances it can hardly be in doubt that the
respondents' conduct constituted an infringement of the copyright
which subsists in the work and in respect of which the applicant has
compellingly demonstrated authorship of. I am accordingly
satisfied
that the applicant has made out a case for infringement.
Relief
[45]
Under the circumstances and for the reasons given there is no reason
why the applicant should not be entitled to the relief
it seeks in
terms of prayer 1 to 3 of the notice of motion.
[46]
With regard to prayer 4, the applicant seeks a royalty calculated at
the rate of Rl,30 per principal member of the first respondent
per
annum from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 and thereafter at
the standard rate of payment per principal member per annum
which
will be paid by members of the applicant to the applicant
alternatively directing that an enquiry be held in terms of section
24(lB)ofthe Act.
[47]
In my view and having regard to the manner in which the royalty rate
has been historically fixed with specific reference to
the agreement
between the applicant and the third respondent I am of the view that
the amount set out in paragraph 4 in respect
of the period until 31
December 2010 appears to be reasonable and indeed that the additional
payments beyond 31 December 2010 are
also determined by a manner that
is fair and transparent and equitable. Under these circumstances it
would simply delay the conclusion
of the matter and incur further
costs to the respective parties if the court should direct the
holding of an enquiry as contemplated
in section 24. Under these
circumstances there would appear to be no cogent reason why I should
direct an enquiry be held and accordingly
believe it is competent to
grant the relief as sought in paragraph 4.
[48]
The parties were in agreement that costs should follow the result and
in such event should include the costs of two counsel.
[49]
In all the circumstances I make the following order:
1.
The second respondent is restrained from infringing the copyright of
the applicant in the Practice Code Numbering System (hereinafter
"the
PCNS")- as described in paragraph 7 of the founding affidavit of
Humphrey Zukisa Zokufa, in terms of
section 23(1)
of the
Copyright
Act, by
making use of the PCNS in the course of its business and
thereby reproducing and/or publishing and/or making adaptations of it
in any manner without the written licence of the applicant.
2.
The first respondent is restrained from causing and/or aiding and/or
abetting the second respondent to infringe the copyright
of the
applicant in the PCNS as set out in paragraph 1 above.
3.
The first respondent and the second respondent are directed to
deliver up to the applicant all data bases, records and/or documents
which incorporate the PCNS or any part, adaptations or infringing
copies thereof, in whatever form or storage medium they may exist,
which are in their possession or under their control.
4.
The first respondent and the second respondent are directed to pay to
the applicant a reasonable royalty for the period 1 January
2010 to
the date on which the first and second respondent cease infringing
the copyright of the applicant in the PCNS, said reasonable
royalty
to be calculated at the rate of r1.30 per principal member of the
first respondent per annum from 1 January 2010 until
31 December 2010
and, thereafter, at the standard rate of payment per principal member
per annum which will be paid by members
of the first respondent to
the first respondent. 5. The first respondent and the second
respondent are directed, jointly and severally,
to pay the costs of
this application, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
N
KolIapen
Judge
of the North Gauteng High Court
35769-2011
Heard
on: 01 March 2012
For
the applicant: P Ginsburg SC and S Budlender
Instructed
by: Adams and Adams
For
the respondents: C E Puckrin SC and I Joubert
Instructed
by: Spoor and Fisher