Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd v Up To Date Tomatoes (Pty) Ltd (13329/14) [2016] ZAWCHC 105 (28 July 2016)
The court held that the applicant, having relied on electronic records of the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market to support its case, is obliged to make those records available for inspection under Rule 35(12). The tender of printed reports does not satisfy the rule, as the respondent is entitled to inspect the source electronic records to test the evidence. The applicant failed to provide adequate explanation for its inability to produce the records or facilitate equivalent access for the respondent. The court found that reasonable efforts must be made to produce and make available the electronic records, and if the applicant cannot comply, the respondent may seek relief under Rule 30A,...
- Citation
- [2016] ZAWCHC 105
- Parties
- Applicant: Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Up To Date Tomatoes (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2016
- Case Number
- 13329/14
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Rule 35(12) and Related Relief
- Outcome
- Application granted in favour of the respondent. The applicant is ordered to comply with paragraph 4 of the respondent's Rule 35(12) notice within ten days, failing which the respondent may seek to strike out the relevant paragraphs. The respondent is granted an extension to file its answering affidavit and is...
- Judges
- N P Boqwana
- Legal Topics
- Discovery of Documents, Trade Mark Infringement, Rule 35 12 Compliance, Inspection of Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Up To Date Tomatoes (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Rule 35(12) and Related Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is obliged to produce electronic records of the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market for inspection under Rule 35(12).
- 2 Whether the tender of printed reports satisfies the requirements of Rule 35(12).
- 3 What relief is available to the respondent in the event of non-compliance with Rule 35(12).
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having relied on electronic records of the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market to support its case, is obliged to make those records available for inspection under Rule 35(12). The tender of printed reports does not satisfy the rule, as the respondent is entitled to inspect the source electronic records to test the evidence. The applicant failed to provide adequate explanation for its inability to produce the records or facilitate equivalent access for the respondent. The court found that reasonable efforts must be made to produce and make available the electronic records, and if the applicant cannot comply, the respondent may seek relief under Rule 30A,...
Court Disposition
Application granted in favour of the respondent. The applicant is ordered to comply with paragraph 4 of the respondent's Rule 35(12) notice within ten days, failing which the respondent may seek to strike out the relevant paragraphs. The respondent is granted an extension to file its answering affidavit and is...
Orders
- The applicant is directed to comply with paragraph 4 of the respondent's notice in terms of Rule 35(12) dated 9 September 2014 and served on it on 10 September 2014 within ten days of this order.
- In the event of non-compliance, the respondent may approach the court to strike out as irrelevant matter those paragraphs of the applicant's founding affidavit in the main application referencing documents not produced.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment