In November 2025, the High Court considered a claim arising from a birth injury. The defendant Member of the Executive Council for Health had been held liable for all agreed or proven damages. Although the matter was trial‑ready by January 2024, the damages hearing was set for 17 August 2027, creating a lengthy gap. The court granted an interim payment of R1 million under Rule 34A where liability had already been determined, special damages were supported by joint expert work, and the trial on quantum was only due in August 2027. The outcome confirms that, in appropriate circumstances, a measured interim award may be made as a reasonable proportion of the damages likely to be recovered.
The baby suffered a brachial plexus injury sustained during shoulder dystocia at birth at the Natalspruit Hospital. The claimant’s pleaded damages, consistent with the joint minutes, comprised special damages for future medical expenses and loss of earnings totalling about R5.645 million, general damages of R1.5 million, and case management costs of R300,000 (approximately R7.446 million in total). An interim payment of R1.5 million was sought as a reasonable proportion of the anticipated recovery.
The application relied on Rule 34A’s framework: the merits had been resolved in the claimant’s favour; special damages were actuarially supported based on joint expert minutes and reports; and there would be a long delay before the quantum trial. In essence, the claimant contended that a quantified, proportionate interim award against undisputed special damages was justified.
The respondent opposed the relief on three main grounds. First, it argued that the minor’s best interests required the prior appointment of a court‑appointed guardian (curator ad litem) and/or establishment of a trust before any funds were released. Second, it indicated an intention to amend the plea to raise a public healthcare defence. Third, it said the amount sought exceeded the minor’s short‑term needs, contending that, beyond occupational therapy, no immediate or medium‑term treatment was required and that relevant services and devices were available in the public sector. It submitted that a claimant must sufficiently quantify short‑term medical or earnings‑related needs to justify an interim award directed at near‑term requirements.
The court restated Rule 34A’s requirements: liability must be established by admission or judgment; the respondent must be able to pay; and any interim award must be confined to special damages and must not exceed a reasonable portion of the damages likely to be recovered. It referenced the minimum disclosure principles, namely the need for proper grounds, documentary support, and sufficient quantification of short‑term medical costs and loss of earnings up to the trial date.
On the papers, the requirements were met. Liability had been determined by order of court, the State’s ability to pay was not in issue, and the application was grounded in joint minutes and supporting reports that would underpin the damages case. While the respondent raised the potential need for a curator or trust, the availability of public‑sector care, and a contemplated plea amendment, these objections were found to be misdirected or immaterial to the discrete Rule 34A inquiry on the record before the court. Although some immediate items were particularised—such as 40 occupational therapy sessions totalling R41,400—the broader Rule 34A criteria were satisfied by the established liability and a documentary underpinning of special damages.
The court awarded R1 million rather than the R1.5 million sought. This outcome underscores two points. First, where liability is settled, special damages are documented and supported, and there is a significant delay to trial, Rule 34A empowers a court to make a proportionate interim award as a reasonable portion of anticipated special damages. Second, the exercise remains one of calibration and proportionality, aiming to reduce the risk of overpayment before final judgment while providing meaningful interim relief.