Benatar v Black Academic Caucus (18821/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 265 (15 December 2021)

Benatar v Black Academic Caucus (18821/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 265 (15 December 2021)

The applicant failed to establish with sufficient accuracy the right he wishes to exercise or protect and how the requested information from the BAC would assist in exercising or protecting such right. The application was initiated years after the events in question, with no contemporaneous engagement or indication of intended legal action. The applicant's stated purpose of restorative justice is vague, undefined, and not linked to any legal process or forum. The information sought is not required to commence any legal action, as any claim would lie against the BAC as a legal entity, not its individual members. The request for all BAC statements constitutes a prohibited fishing expedition...

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 265
Parties
Applicant: David Benatar; Respondent: Black Academic Caucus
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Case Number
18821/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion for Access to Information Under PAIA
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
P.A.L. Gamble
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Access to Information, Rights of Requesters, Restorative Justice, Subsidiarity Principle
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Promotion of Access to Information Act Access to Information Rights of Requesters Restorative Justice Subsidiarity Principle

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Benatar

Applicant

Black Academic Caucus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion for Access to Information Under PAIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a right that requires access to the requested records under section 50(1)(a) of PAIA.
  2. 2 Whether the information sought is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes a pre-litigation fishing expedition prohibited by PAIA.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish with sufficient accuracy the right he wishes to exercise or protect and how the requested information from the BAC would assist in exercising or protecting such right. The application was initiated years after the events in question, with no contemporaneous engagement or indication of intended legal action. The applicant's stated purpose of restorative justice is vague, undefined, and not linked to any legal process or forum. The information sought is not required to commence any legal action, as any claim would lie against the BAC as a legal entity, not its individual members. The request for all BAC statements constitutes a prohibited fishing expedition...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the scale as between attorney and client.