The Compensation Commissioner & Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v The Compensation Commissioner & Others (997/2021; 1175/2021) [2022] ZASCA 165 (29 November 2022)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether, on a proper interpretation, the settlement agreement and the 75-day order applied only to the medical accounts that formed the subject matter of the application served before Makhafola AJ or also to accounts to be submitted by CompSol in the future.
• Whether s 32 of the Act prohibits the cession by medical service providers of their medical accounts.
• Whether CompSol had commenced proceedings prematurely in that it did not comply with the W.CI.20 procedure contained in the applicable regulations issued under the Act.

Holdings

• The court upheld the first appeal (997/2021), setting aside the high court's order and replacing it with a declaration that the 75-day order applies only to claims submitted before 31 July 2009, not future claims. The 75-day order is a binding precedent but does not govern future medical accounts.
• Costs incurred from the 5 September 2022 postponement were allocated to the appeals, with the court criticizing unnecessary legal expenditures by the State parties.
• The court ordered that the State Attorney may not recover fees for more than one senior and one junior counsel in appeal 1175/2021, addressing excessive legal costs incurred during the hearing.
• The second appeal (1175/2021) and cross-appeal were dismissed. The court ruled that non-compliance with the W.CI.20 procedure is not a jurisdictional bar to legal proceedings and that s 32 of the Act does not prohibit cession of medical claims by service providers.

Remedies

• The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with an order that the application succeeds with costs and an order in accordance with Prayer 1 of the notice of motion.
• The second appeal (1175/2021) and cross-appeal are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed. The State Attorney is not entitled to recover fees for more than one senior and one junior counsel.
• The State Attorney is not entitled to recover from its clients the fees and expenses of more than one senior and one junior counsel in appeal 1175/2021.

Legal Principles

• The court relied on the literal rule to interpret the 75-day order, examining the exact wording of the settlement agreement. The analysis concluded that the order referred to past submissions and did not extend to future medical accounts.
• The court applied costs principles to address the excessive legal fees incurred during the hearing. It ruled that the State Attorney could not recover fees for more than one senior and one junior counsel, emphasizing the need to allocate funds for compensation to claimants instead of unnecessary legal costs.
• The court applied the purposive approach in interpreting the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, considering the object and purpose of the Act to distinguish between compensation and the cost of medical aid. This approach was used to determine that the 75-day order was a backward-looking settlement and did not apply to future claims.

Precedent Name

Cited Statute

• Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993
• State Liability Act 20 of 1993

Judge Name

• J P Daffue
• Ponnan
• Goosen
• Van der Merwe
• Mothle

Passage Text

• Section 32 cannot be read in isolation but with regard to the scheme of the Act as a whole as well as its object and purpose... There can be no doubt that the purpose of s 32 is to protect the interests of employees...
• The parties accept the above undertakings in settlement of the above application.
• The parties record their mutual commitment to a functional process... The Applicant and the First Respondent shall meet weekly at the latter's Port Elizabeth offices.