All G 2 G Ltd and Others v Janse Van Rensburg and Others (59644/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 731 (4 November 2021)

All G 2 G Ltd and Others v Janse Van Rensburg and Others (59644/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 731 (4 November 2021)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicants have not met the raised threshold under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The matter has become moot as the applicants have already instituted an action for damages based on the same facts, and the information in question has lost its confidentiality. The applicants failed to make out a proper case in their founding affidavit and attempted to supplement their case in replying affidavits without exceptional circumstances. The evidence relied upon was unlawfully obtained and protected by legal professional privilege, and the court correctly exercised its discretion to strike out the offending paragraphs....

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 731
Parties
Applicant: All G 2 G Ltd; Applicant: CJ Professional Services; Applicant: Meadows Salary & Admin Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Karen Elizabeth Janse Van Rensburg; Respondent: Elmarie Ibanez; Respondent: Carol Joubert
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
59644/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application and Striking Out Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel where employed, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Test, Admissibility of Evidence, Confidential Information, Urgent Interdict, Legal Professional Privilege
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Test Admissibility of Evidence Confidential Information Urgent Interdict Legal Professional Privilege

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All G 2 G Ltd

Applicant

CJ Professional Services

Applicant

Meadows Salary & Admin Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Karen Elizabeth Janse Van Rensburg

Respondent

Elmarie Ibanez

Respondent

Carol Joubert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application and Striking Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal is moot due to subsequent institution of action for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence relied upon by the applicants was admissible, given allegations of unlawful acquisition and privilege.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicants have not met the raised threshold under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The matter has become moot as the applicants have already instituted an action for damages based on the same facts, and the information in question has lost its confidentiality. The applicants failed to make out a proper case in their founding affidavit and attempted to supplement their case in replying affidavits without exceptional circumstances. The evidence relied upon was unlawfully obtained and protected by legal professional privilege, and the court correctly exercised its discretion to strike out the offending paragraphs....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel where employed, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of senior counsel where so employed, jointly and severally.