Judge Wille refuses Life Healthcare appeal in Kathan privileges case

Life Healthcare has been refused permission to appeal a ruling that went against it over the practising privileges of Cape Town oncologist Dr Louis Kathan, with a Western Cape High Court judge finding the hospital group never proved the misconduct it relied on to terminate them.

Judge Derek Wille refused Life Healthcare Holdings and Life Vincent Pallotti Hospital leave to appeal on September 16. He found there was no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion, and ordered the group to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.

The finding, in the judge’s words

Wille was blunt about the grounds the hospital group put before him. He described them as indiscriminate, overlapping and randomly presented alleged errors.

His criticism went further back than the appeal. The group, he said, had initially chosen one course and then changed tack altogether, and it ultimately failed to prove misconduct justifying termination.

At the centre of the dispute was how Life Healthcare used its own policies when it cancelled Kathan’s practising and admission privileges. The earlier judgment found the hospital had used the incorrect policy instrument, and that the evidence before it did not establish misconduct warranting the cancellation of his privileges under the contractual framework.

Life Healthcare argued its policies allowed it to immediately terminate a doctor’s privileges for unacceptable behaviour or conduct considered detrimental to the hospital. Wille found the provision it relied on was meant for exceptional circumstances, where a doctor’s continued presence at the hospital had become untenable.

What undercut that argument was the group’s own conduct. It did not terminate immediately. It ran a process over a period of time and delayed implementing the termination for several months.

Hearsay affidavits, and what they could not do

The evidence behind the allegations also came under scrutiny. Life Healthcare relied on hearsay affidavits from people who had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged conduct.

Wille found those affidavits could explain why a disciplinary inquiry was started. They could not prove misconduct that justified terminating Kathan’s contractual practising privileges.

The allegations themselves were that Kathan made homophobic, racist and sexist remarks while at the hospital. He disputed them.

Seventeen patients went to court separately

The dispute reached past the doctor and the boardroom. Cancer patients who wanted to keep receiving treatment from Kathan found their access to him at Life Healthcare facilities affected.

Seventeen patients went to court separately and succeeded in April 2025 in having the decision declared invalid. Their case and Kathan’s application are separate matters, although they overlap, and leave to appeal has since been granted in the patients’ matter.

That is the practical consequence a reader should hold on to. A privileges dispute between a hospital group and a specialist is not an internal administrative matter when the specialist is an oncologist. For patients in active cancer treatment, continuity of care is the treatment. When a practising privilege is cancelled, the queue, the referral and the relationship with the clinician who knows the file all move, and the patient carries the cost of the move.

In refusing leave in Kathan’s case, Wille found the application disclosed no appealable error of law or fact and had no reasonable prospects of success.

The order on costs stands against Life Healthcare Holdings and Life Vincent Pallotti Hospital.

Source: IOL, Western Cape High Court judge shuts down Life Healthcare appeal bid in oncologist dispute