Category: Uniform High Court

Prescribed minimum benefits: Cause of action lacking

Cassiem v Government Employees Medical Scheme Prescribed minimum benefits claimed again and high court decided that the ‘common thread that permeated through these various proceedings, is the contention by the applicants...

Read More

Producing relevant documents: Uniform Rule 35(12) applied

Democratic Alliance v Mkhwebane With regard to the onus and producing relevant documents the SCA confirmed that the term onus is not to be confused with the burden to adduce evidence (for example, that a document is privileged...

Read More

Separating legal issues: Leave to appeal refused

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys v Trollip In separating legal issues high court cited authority for deciding that convenience must be demonstrated and sufficient information must be placed before the court to enable it to exercise...

Read More

Judicial review explained: Student disciplinary inquiry

Dart v DAC of Stellenbosch University High court explained function of judicial review and decided that because the issue of notice did not appear from either the Notice of Motion or the affidavits filed of record, the...

Read More

Confidentiality claim considered: Discovery and fairness

Erasmus NO v MEC for Health, NC Province High court considered confidentiality claim and exercised a discretion not to order disclosure after considering the consequences of ordering discovery of information regarding the...

Read More

Disciplinary process outlined: Three-stage inquiry explained

SA Legal Practice Council v REC Full bench of the high court outlined the sui generis nature of the disciplinary process and stressed that when considering whether an attorney ought to be removed from the roll or suspended from...

Read More

Malicious proceedings claim: Prescribed cause of action?

Holden v Assmang Ltd SCA interpreted s12(1) of the Prescription Act and confirmed that a debt is only due, owing and payable and a complete cause of action was only acquired when the complaint of gross breach of professional...

Read More

Without prejudice rule: Striking out irregular step

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Read More

Accessing preserved evidence: Instituting legal proceedings

Cell C Ltd v MA Accessing preserved evidence allows a former employer to obtain the necessary evidence and proof to institute legal action against former employees who colluded in causing substantial prejudice to the employer...

Read More

Assessing urgent applications: Compliance with rules?

Rokwil Civils (Pty) Ltd v Le Sueur NO High Court had regard to various factors and case law in assessing urgent applications and decided that applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proving that non-compliance with the...

Read More

Expert evidence considered: Requirements and duties

A M v MEC Health, Western Cape Importantly the SCA has provided guidance and considered expert evidence and stressed that since 1963, when Rule 36(9) was changed,  there have been changes in how lawyers prepare expert summaries...

Read More

Establishing court jurisdiction: Registered office or principal place?

Mfwethu Investments CC v Citiq Meter Solutions (Pty) Ltd Establishing court jurisdiction requires proof that registered office falls within area after gathering information registered with the CIPC, rather than trying to prove...

Read More
Loading