Emergency Medical Supplies and Training CC (trading as EMS) v Health Professions Council of South Africa

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Manca AJ
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2008
• Docket Number: A15/07
• Court: Cape Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 05 September 2008
• Citation: 2008 JDR 1528 (C)

Manca AJ:

[1]

The appellant in this matter, Emergency Medical Supplies and Training CC, had been accredited by the Professional Board for Emergency Care Practitioners, the second respondent, to train certain levels of emergency care practitioners. In December of 2006 that accreditation was withdrawn and the appellant now appeals against that decision.

The statutory framework

[2]

The first respondent, the Health Professions Council of South Africa, was established by section 2(1) of the Health Professions Act No. 56 of 1974 ("the Act") and is the successor to what was previously known as "The South African Medical and Dental Council" and more recently as "The Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa".

[3]

S 15(1) of the Act now makes provision for the establishment of professional boards to carry out certain of the functions which were previously carried out by the single and all-encompassing Medical and Dental Council. The second respondent, viz. the board responsible for emergency care practitioners, was established in 1998 and one of its objects is to control and exercise authority in respect of all matters affecting the training of persons in the discipline of emergency care practitioners. Emergency care practitioners are colloquially referred to as "paramedics" who practise in the pre-hospital setting, usually at the scene of a calamity, where they stabilise the patient's condition and ferry him to a health establishment for further treatment.

2008 JDR 1528 p3

Manca AJ

[4]

In terms of s 16 of the Act no person or educational institution may offer or provide training unless the training to be so effected has been approved by the relevant professional board who may attach such conditions and requirements to the approval as deemed fit by it.

[5]

The following categories of emergency care practitioners are registered under the auspices of the second respondent, viz.:

(i)

Basic Ambulance Assistants ("BAA");

(ii)

Ambulance Emergency Assistants ("AEA"); and

(iii)

Critical Care Assistants ("CCA").

[6]

S 20 affords an aggrieved person a right of appeal and provides as follows:

"20.

Right to appeal

(1)

Any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the council, a professional board or a disciplinary appeal committee, may appeal to the appropriate High Court against such decision.

(2)

Notice of appeal must be given within one month from the date on which such decision was given."

The decision appealed against

[7]

Until December 2006 the appellant, a private college, had been accredited by the second respondent to offer training in all three of the

2008 JDR 1528 p4

Manca AJ

abovementioned categories.

[8]

At a meeting held on 11 December 2006 the second respondent resolved to terminate the applicant's accreditation to train BAA, AEA and CCA courses. That decision was communicated to the appellant's attorney by the second respondent's attorney on 13 December 2006.

[9]

The appellant felt aggrieved by this decision and on 12 January 2007 delivered a notice of appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 20 of the Act.

[10]

On 12 January 2008 the appellant's representative, Mr Craig Northmore, deposed to an affidavit, which affidavit, he alleged, served as the record of the appeal. This affidavit was not responded to by the respondents.

The interlocutory application

[11]

During June 2008 the respondents launched an application ("the interlocutory application") in which they sought an order declaring that the notice of appeal was given out of time, alternatively that the appeal has lapsed, and an order that the appeal be struck from the roll with costs.

[12]

In the alternative, the respondents sought an order striking out the record filed by the applicant and substituting it with what it contended was the record of proceedings, alternatively that certain paragraphs from the affidavit deposed to by Mr Northmore be struck out on the grounds that they were irrelevant and/or argumentative and/or extraneous and/or vexatious and sought an order that the Court give directions as to the

2008 JDR 1528 p5

Manca AJ

manner in which the appeal is to be dealt with which would necessitate an order postponing the appeal sine die.

[13]

The interlocutory application is opposed and answering and replying affidavits have been delivered.

[14]

The appellant and the respondents have also delivered heads of argument. The respondents have not dealt with the merits of the appeal in their heads of argument, nor have they dealt with the factual allegations contained in Mr Northmore's affidavit, which he contends is the record of the proceedings.

The dispute

[15]

The main issue that arises at this stage is what constitutes the record on which the appeal is to be adjudicated. This issue, which arises if the appeal is not struck from the roll, resolves into an enquiry whether the statutory...