Bishop v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 393; 417/2021 (25 May 2023)

Bishop v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 393; 417/2021 (25 May 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The evidence presented by the applicant, including multiple affidavits, was contradictory and did not provide a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that another court would reach a different decision. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is high, and the applicant did not meet it. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 393
Parties
Applicant: Tarquin Jonathan Bishop; Respondent: South African Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Bishop Incorporated
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2023
Case Number
417/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 24 January 2023.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Collis, Phahlane
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Contradictory Evidence
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Order Contradictory Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarquin Jonathan Bishop

Applicant

South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Bishop Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 24 January 2023.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's contradictory evidence affects the prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The evidence presented by the applicant, including multiple affidavits, was contradictory and did not provide a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that another court would reach a different decision. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is high, and the applicant did not meet it. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused, with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • Applicant to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.