Barrat, Ex parte (7049/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 162 (6 June 2008)

Barrat, Ex parte (7049/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 162 (6 June 2008)

The court found that the applicant's service from 2 January 2007 to 1 April 2007 was irregular in two respects: the contract was not registered as required by section 5, and the principal had more than the permitted number of candidate attorneys under section 3(3). The explanation provided by the applicant and her principal was not sufficient or reasonable to justify condonation under section 13(2). Unlike Ex parte Ndabangaye, where the irregularity was remedied and the explanation accepted, the present case involved non-compliance that could not be undone. The applicant's constitutional right to pursue her profession was not denied, as she could complete the remaining period of articles...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 162
Parties
Applicant: Dale Barratt
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2008
Case Number
7049/08
Procedural Posture
Admission Application / Application for Condonation and Admission as Attorney
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; application for admission as attorney postponed sine die.
Judges
Legodi, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Attorneys Act, Admission to Practice, Irregular Service, Condonation, Articles of Clerkship
Civil Procedure Attorneys Act Admission to Practice Irregular Service Condonation Articles of Clerkship

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dale Barratt

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Admission Application / Application for Condonation and Admission as Attorney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period of articles served irregularly from 2 January 2007 to 1 April 2007 should be condoned as regular service under section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to admission as an attorney despite non-compliance with section 3(3) and section 5 of the Attorneys Act.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for irregular service constitutes sufficient cause under section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's service from 2 January 2007 to 1 April 2007 was irregular in two respects: the contract was not registered as required by section 5, and the principal had more than the permitted number of candidate attorneys under section 3(3). The explanation provided by the applicant and her principal was not sufficient or reasonable to justify condonation under section 13(2). Unlike Ex parte Ndabangaye, where the irregularity was remedied and the explanation accepted, the present case involved non-compliance that could not be undone. The applicant's constitutional right to pursue her profession was not denied, as she could complete the remaining period of articles...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; application for admission as attorney postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The application for condonation in terms of section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979 for irregular service of articles of clerkship is refused.
  • The application for admission as an attorney is postponed sine die.