Hunter v Financial Services Board and Others (3725/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1208 (14 December 2016)

Hunter v Financial Services Board and Others (3725/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1208 (14 December 2016)

The applicant failed to establish the necessary standing in law to claim the relief sought, either under the original or amended notice of motion. The court found that the applicant did not have a direct and substantial interest sufficient to justify judicial intervention compelling the FSB and the Minister to act in the manner she prescribed. The constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon did not confer enforceable rights in this context. The application for amendment was refused due to genuine disputes of fact, lateness, and lack of standing. The joinder of the third and fourth respondents was improper as they had no direct interest in the relief sought. On costs, the court...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1208
Parties
Applicant: Rosemary Therese Hunter; Respondent: Financial Services Board; Respondent: Abel Moffat Sithole N.O.; Respondent: Dube Phineas Tshidi N.O.; Respondent: Jurgen Arnold Boyd N.O.; Respondent: Pravin Gordhan N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Case Number
3725/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Application and Amendment
Judges
HF Jacobs
Legal Topics
Standing to Seek Relief, Public Interest Litigation, Pension Fund Regulation, Judicial Review, Costs Award, Protected Disclosures
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Standing to Seek Relief Public Interest Litigation Pension Fund Regulation Judicial Review Costs Award +1 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Therese Hunter

Applicant

Financial Services Board

Respondent

Abel Moffat Sithole N.O.

Respondent

Dube Phineas Tshidi N.O.

Respondent

Jurgen Arnold Boyd N.O.

Respondent

Pravin Gordhan N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Application and Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have standing to seek the relief claimed regarding the pension funds cancellation project?
  2. 2 Is the applicant entitled to compel the Financial Services Board and the Minister to conduct investigations and disclose reports?
  3. 3 Should the application for amendment of the notice of motion be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish the necessary standing in law to claim the relief sought, either under the original or amended notice of motion. The court found that the applicant did not have a direct and substantial interest sufficient to justify judicial intervention compelling the FSB and the Minister to act in the manner she prescribed. The constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon did not confer enforceable rights in this context. The application for amendment was refused due to genuine disputes of fact, lateness, and lack of standing. The joinder of the third and fourth respondents was improper as they had no direct interest in the relief sought. On costs, the court...