Ingledew v Financial Services Board (CCT6/02) [2003] ZACC 8; 2003 (8) BCLR 825 ; 2003 (4) SA 584 (CC) (13 May 2003)

Ingledew v Financial Services Board (CCT6/02) [2003] ZACC 8; 2003 (8) BCLR 825 ; 2003 (4) SA 584 (CC) (13 May 2003)

The Constitutional Court held that while the application raised constitutional matters, it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The applicant was able to plead without the requested information, and any prejudice claimed was speculative. The constitutional issues arose during a transitional period before the Promotion of Access to Information Act came into operation and would not have broader implications. The Court found that the rules of court regulate discovery during litigation, and the applicant did not challenge the constitutionality of rule 35(14). Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs...

Citation
[2003] ZACC 8
Parties
Applicant: Norman Murray Ingledew; Respondent: Financial Services Board; Defendant: JS van der Merwe
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Case Number
CCT 6/02
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application in High Court.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ngcobo, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Access to Information, Rule 35 Discovery, Fair Trial Rights, Promotion of Access to Information Act, Constitutional Limitation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Access to Information Rule 35 Discovery Fair Trial Rights Promotion of Access to Information Act Constitutional Limitation

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Murray Ingledew

Applicant

Financial Services Board

Respondent

JS van der Merwe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application in High Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to information from the respondent under rule 35(14) of the Uniform Rules of Court for purposes of pleading.
  2. 2 Whether section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution confers a concurrent right to information during litigation, independent of rule 35(14).
  3. 3 Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that while the application raised constitutional matters, it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The applicant was able to plead without the requested information, and any prejudice claimed was speculative. The constitutional issues arose during a transitional period before the Promotion of Access to Information Act came into operation and would not have broader implications. The Court found that the rules of court regulate discovery during litigation, and the applicant did not challenge the constitutionality of rule 35(14). Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal and written argument are granted; costs to be borne by the applicant.
  • The applications for condonation of the late filing of the replying affidavit and for leave to file that affidavit are refused; no order as to costs.