Morgan Beef (Pty) Limited v Mkhulu Electro Distribution Projects (Pty) Limited and Another (60027/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 507 (18 August 2017)

Morgan Beef (Pty) Limited v Mkhulu Electro Distribution Projects (Pty) Limited and Another (60027/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 507 (18 August 2017)

The court found that none of the Respondent's objections to providing the requested documents under Rule 35(3) were valid. The fact that some documents may already be in the Applicant's possession does not absolve the Respondent of its duty to provide them. The argument that a new application should be brought for documents already provided is unsupported by authority and incorrect. The documents requested are relevant to the main action, as they pertain to the collision and related insurance matters. The claim of privilege was not substantiated and does not apply to the documents requested. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought by the Applicant, ordering the Respondent to...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 507
Parties
Applicant: Morgan Beef (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Mkhulu Electro Distribution Projects (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Jean Marcello Lamperini
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Case Number
60027/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the Applicant.
Judges
G Rautenbach
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Application, Privilege, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 Application Privilege Relevance of Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Beef (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Mkhulu Electro Distribution Projects (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Jean Marcello Lamperini

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent is obliged to provide the documents requested under Rule 35(3).
  2. 2 Whether the documents requested are already in the Applicant's possession and if that constitutes a defence.
  3. 3 Whether the documents requested are relevant to the main action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the Respondent's objections to providing the requested documents under Rule 35(3) were valid. The fact that some documents may already be in the Applicant's possession does not absolve the Respondent of its duty to provide them. The argument that a new application should be brought for documents already provided is unsupported by authority and incorrect. The documents requested are relevant to the main action, as they pertain to the collision and related insurance matters. The claim of privilege was not substantiated and does not apply to the documents requested. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought by the Applicant, ordering the Respondent to...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Respondent/First Defendant is directed to within ten days comply with numbered paragraphs 1, 2, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Applicant/Plaintiff's Rule 35(3) Notice dated 1 March 2016.
  • The Respondent/First Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.