Automated Summary
Key Facts
In case 56219/2021, the Defendants (Applicants in the application) sought leave to amend their plea to raise prescription under sections 43/44 of COIDA and the Prescription Act. The application was refused because the Defendants attempted to include other impermissible pleas beyond the scope of permission granted by Ally, AJ. The court also granted condonation for the late filing of the Reply but ordered the Defendants to pay the costs of the condonation application on Scale C. Previous decisions on the same issues are pending appeal, but the court declined to apply punitive costs for raising those issues again.
Issues
- The court considered whether the Defendants' proposed amendment to plead prescription under sections 43 and 44 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) was valid. The Plaintiff argued that these sections do not apply to medical invoices, as they relate to employee benefits. The court dismissed this amendment, citing previous decisions by the Supreme Court of Appeal and lower courts that found similar pleas unsustainable. The Defendants' argument that prior decisions were incorrect was rejected, as the court is bound by the SCA's rulings and unconvinced by lower court analyses.
- The court evaluated the Defendants' attempt to plead prescription under the 1969 Prescription Act. The Plaintiff objected that the plea failed to specify when liabilities arose and thus did not disclose a defence. The court found the amendment insufficient, as the plea was too vague and relied on annexures that did not clarify the necessary dates. This issue was compared to prior cases where similar pleas were dismissed for lacking proper pleading under Gericke v Sack. The court concluded the amendment could not be entertained due to these deficiencies.
Holdings
- The court ordered the Defendants to pay costs on Scale B for the dismissed amendment, Scale C for the condonation of the late reply, and Scale C for the unauthorized amendment attempts. Condonation for the late reply was granted.
- The court dismissed the Defendants' application to amend their plea to include prescription under sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, finding that previous decisions in similar cases were not clearly wrong and that the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling was binding.
- The court refused the amendment to raise prescription under the Prescription Act, as the Defendants failed to properly plead the necessary details, such as the dates of inception and prescription periods, rendering the plea excusable.
Remedies
- The court granted condonation for the late filing of the Reply. The Defendants are ordered to pay the costs of this application on Scale C (attorney and own client costs).
- The court refused the Defendants' application to amend their plea as per the new plea in the Notice of Intention to Amend. The costs of this refusal are to be paid on Scale B, which includes Senior Counsel costs but not on an attorney and client basis. This order is subject to the subsequent costs orders.
- The court ordered the Defendants to pay costs arising from their attempt to amend the plea beyond the scope permitted by Ally, AJ. These costs are to be paid on Scale C (attorney and own client costs).
Legal Principles
- The court evaluated a Prescription Act plea, determining it was improperly pleaded due to insufficient detail on liability inception and prescription dates, as per the principles in Gericke v Sack.
- The court considered whether previous judgments against the Defendants could be relied upon as res judicata, concluding that pending appeals precluded finality and thus no punitive costs were justified for re-raising issues.
- The court addressed the application of prescription under sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, finding that the Defendants' plea was dismissed as these sections do not apply to medical cost claims, per the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling.
- The court ordered punitive costs against the Defendants for late filing of a Reply without condonation and for attempting amendments beyond permitted scope, while granting condonation for the late Reply.
Precedent Name
- Gericke v Sack
- Compensation Commissioner v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd
- HF Jacobs, AJ
Cited Statute
- Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act
- Prescription Act (1969)
Judge Name
Potgieter AJ
Passage Text
- [35.1] The Defendants' application to amend the Defendants' Plea as set out in the Defendants' new Plea attached as Annexure to the Defendants' Notice of Intention to Amend, is refused with costs.
- [28] I am therefore, in the premises, constrained to conclude that the Defendants have failed to properly plead prescription based on the Prescription Act and consequently the amendment, as it now stands, cannot be entertained.
- [20] In the premises the application to amend the Defendants' Plea to raise a Plea of Prescription based upon sections 43 and 44 of COIDA is dismissed with costs. (The Scale will be addressed herein later).