Beinash and Another v Ernst & Young and Others (CCT12/98) [1998] ZACC 19; 1999 (2) SA 116 (CC); 1999 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) (2 December 1998)

Beinash and Another v Ernst & Young and Others (CCT12/98) [1998] ZACC 19; 1999 (2) SA 116 (CC); 1999 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) (2 December 1998)

Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act does limit the right of access to courts protected by section 34 of the Constitution. However, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable under section 36, as it serves the important purpose of protecting bona fide litigants and the administration of justice from vexatious proceedings. The Act provides a procedural barrier, not an absolute prohibition, and allows for judicial discretion and proportionality. The applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success, did not comply with procedural requirements for leave to appeal, and did not join the Minister of Justice as an interested party. The application for leave to...

Citation
[1998] ZACC 19
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Leon Beinash; Applicant: J B & L Nominees CC; Respondent: Ernst and Young; Respondent: Thomas Alexander Wixley; Respondent: Phillip Wardel Moorrees Reynolds
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 1998
Case Number
CCT12/98
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Unsuccessful Proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mokgoro, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Court, Vexatious Litigation, Bill of Rights Limitation, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Barriers
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right of Access to Court Vexatious Litigation Bill of Rights Limitation Leave to Appeal Procedural Barriers

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Leon Beinash

Applicant

J B & L Nominees CC

Applicant

Ernst and Young

Respondent

Thomas Alexander Wixley

Respondent

Phillip Wardel Moorrees Reynolds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Unsuccessful Proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act violate the right of access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Is the limitation imposed by the Act reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution?
  3. 3 Did the applicants comply with procedural requirements for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act does limit the right of access to courts protected by section 34 of the Constitution. However, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable under section 36, as it serves the important purpose of protecting bona fide litigants and the administration of justice from vexatious proceedings. The Act provides a procedural barrier, not an absolute prohibition, and allows for judicial discretion and proportionality. The applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success, did not comply with procedural requirements for leave to appeal, and did not join the Minister of Justice as an interested party. The application for leave to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.