Buttcat Boat Builders (Pty) Ltd and Another v Arvesco 119 (Pty) Ltd t/a Carrycat and Another (1155/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 12 (13 March 2018)

Buttcat Boat Builders (Pty) Ltd and Another v Arvesco 119 (Pty) Ltd t/a Carrycat and Another (1155/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 12 (13 March 2018)

The applicants complied with all formal requirements under PAIA for requesting access to records. The respondents failed to provide a statement under oath as required by section 55 of PAIA until the answering affidavit was filed, and did not previously assert that the records did not exist. The correspondence prior to litigation did not clarify the respondents' position, leaving the applicants with no choice but to approach the court. The applicants met the threshold requirements of section 50 and were entitled to pursue the application. The respondents' defence based on lack of locus standi was not supported by facts, and the applicants' entitlement to costs was established due to the...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Buttcat Boat Builders (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Nitofko (Pty) Ltd t/a Nauti-Tech; Respondent: Arvesco 119 (Pty) Ltd t/a Carrycat; Respondent: Dawie Scholtz
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2018
Case Number
1155/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination Following Application for Access to Documents Under PAIA
Outcome
Application for access to documents rendered academic; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
G G Goosen
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Request for Access to Records, Intellectual Property Rights, Costs Award
Administrative Law Intellectual Property Promotion of Access to Information Act Request for Access to Records Intellectual Property Rights Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buttcat Boat Builders (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nitofko (Pty) Ltd t/a Nauti-Tech

Applicant

Arvesco 119 (Pty) Ltd t/a Carrycat

Respondent

Dawie Scholtz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination Following Application for Access to Documents Under PAIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to bring an application for access to documents under PAIA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents complied with their obligations under section 55 of PAIA to disclose under oath the non-existence of requested records.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a costs order against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants complied with all formal requirements under PAIA for requesting access to records. The respondents failed to provide a statement under oath as required by section 55 of PAIA until the answering affidavit was filed, and did not previously assert that the records did not exist. The correspondence prior to litigation did not clarify the respondents' position, leaving the applicants with no choice but to approach the court. The applicants met the threshold requirements of section 50 and were entitled to pursue the application. The respondents' defence based on lack of locus standi was not supported by facts, and the applicants' entitlement to costs was established due to the...

Court Disposition

Application for access to documents rendered academic; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants’ costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.