Erf 16 Bryntirion (Bty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works (11375/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 201 (18 June 2009)

Erf 16 Bryntirion (Bty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works (11375/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 201 (18 June 2009)

The court held that the legal opinions sought by the applicant are protected by legal professional privilege, which is not overridden by Rule 53 or the applicant's constitutional rights. The Minister of Public Works obtained the opinions in confidence for the purpose of considering the expropriation, and there is no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 201
Parties
Applicant: Erf 16 Bryntirion (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Public Works
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Case Number
11375/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application Under Rule 30 a Seeking Disclosure of Documents in Terms of Rule 53
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Seriti
Legal Topics
State Privilege, Legal Professional Privilege, Expropriation, Rule 53 Record, Access to Information
Administrative Law Civil Procedure State Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Expropriation Rule 53 Record Access to Information

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erf 16 Bryntirion (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Public Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application Under Rule 30 a Seeking Disclosure of Documents in Terms of Rule 53

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to disclose the unedited Bryntirion Report under Rule 53 despite claims of state privilege.
  2. 2 Whether the legal opinions relied upon by the respondent are protected by legal professional privilege and exempt from disclosure.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional rights under sections 32 and 33 override claims of privilege and state security.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the legal opinions sought by the applicant are protected by legal professional privilege, which is not overridden by Rule 53 or the applicant's constitutional rights. The Minister of Public Works obtained the opinions in confidence for the purpose of considering the expropriation, and there is no basis to compel their disclosure. Regarding the Bryntirion Report, the court accepted the evidence of the Minister of Intelligence Services that disclosure of the unedited report would compromise state security. The claim of state privilege was properly made and justified. The applicant's reliance on sections 32 and 33 of the Constitution was misplaced, as access to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of this application, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.