Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger (675/91) [1993] ZASCA 145; 1993 (4) SA 842 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 619 (A) (28 September 1993)

Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger (675/91) [1993] ZASCA 145; 1993 (4) SA 842 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 619 (A) (28 September 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the disclosure of the plaintiff's HIV status by his medical practitioner to third parties constituted a wrongful invasion of privacy protected by the actio iniuriarum. The doctor-patient relationship imposed a duty of confidentiality, reinforced by an express undertaking. The defences of privilege, public interest, and boni mores were rejected because there was no objective risk to the third parties, and the disclosure was neither necessary nor justified. The court found that animus iniuriandi could be inferred from the circumstances, particularly the doctor's misleading conduct and lack of genuine justification. Sentimental damages were awarded to...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 145
Parties
Appellant: J N P Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO; Respondent: M J Kruger
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1993
Case Number
675/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R5,000.00 with costs on the Supreme Court scale.
Judges
Joubert, Nestadt, Kumleben, Nienaber, Harms
Legal Topics
Doctor Patient Confidentiality, Actio Iniuriarum, Right to Privacy, Sentimental Damages, Animus Iniuriandi
Delict Civil Procedure Doctor Patient Confidentiality Actio Iniuriarum Right to Privacy Sentimental Damages Animus Iniuriandi

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J N P Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO

Appellant

M J Kruger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disclosure of the plaintiff's HIV status by his medical practitioner to third parties constituted a wrongful invasion of privacy.
  2. 2 Whether the actio iniuriarum applies to the breach of medical confidentiality in this context.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of privilege or public interest justified the disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the disclosure of the plaintiff's HIV status by his medical practitioner to third parties constituted a wrongful invasion of privacy protected by the actio iniuriarum. The doctor-patient relationship imposed a duty of confidentiality, reinforced by an express undertaking. The defences of privilege, public interest, and boni mores were rejected because there was no objective risk to the third parties, and the disclosure was neither necessary nor justified. The court found that animus iniuriandi could be inferred from the circumstances, particularly the doctor's misleading conduct and lack of genuine justification. Sentimental damages were awarded to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R5,000.00 with costs on the Supreme Court scale.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R5,000.00 with costs on the Supreme Court scale.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellants, including costs of two counsel.