S v S (14/33580) [2015] ZAGPJHC 26 (12 February 2015)

S v S (14/33580) [2015] ZAGPJHC 26 (12 February 2015)

The court held that the rights of the press and public to attend and report on court proceedings are sufficiently important to warrant access to the Rule 43 Application and related documents. However, to protect the privacy of the parties and their children, reporting must not allow identification of any party or child. The court thus permitted journalists and the public to remain in court and access documents, but imposed a restriction on reporting that could reveal identities.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 26
Parties
Applicant: S…….., J……. A……; Respondent: S……. T……. M…… G……
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2015
Case Number
14/33580
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application by the Press Regarding Confidentiality of Rule 43 Proceedings
Outcome
Application by the press granted in part; access allowed with reporting restrictions.
Judges
Wright
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Application, Open Justice, Press Access, Confidentiality of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family and Children Rule 43 Application Open Justice Press Access Confidentiality of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S…….., J……. A……

Applicant

S……. T……. M…… G……

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application by the Press Regarding Confidentiality of Rule 43 Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rule 43 Application should be heard in camera and documents withheld from the press and public.
  2. 2 Whether reporting on the proceedings should be restricted to prevent identification of the parties and their children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the rights of the press and public to attend and report on court proceedings are sufficiently important to warrant access to the Rule 43 Application and related documents. However, to protect the privacy of the parties and their children, reporting must not allow identification of any party or child. The court thus permitted journalists and the public to remain in court and access documents, but imposed a restriction on reporting that could reveal identities.

Court Disposition

Application by the press granted in part; access allowed with reporting restrictions.

Orders

  • Ms Joubert, any other journalist and members of the public may remain in court during the Rule 43 Application.
  • Any person may read the documents filed in the Rule 43 Application heard by Wright J.