Van Der Merwe and Another v National Lotteries Board (38293/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 572 (11 August 2014)

Van Der Merwe and Another v National Lotteries Board (38293/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 572 (11 August 2014)

The Court found that the National Lotteries Board had provided sufficient and uncontested factual grounds for the redactions, as required by PAIA. The applicants failed to place these facts in dispute, relying instead on legal argument. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 572
Parties
Applicant: Jeanne Van Der Merwe; Applicant: Media 24 Limited; Respondent: National Lotteries Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2014
Case Number
38293/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
P.Z. Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Record Redaction, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Access to Information Act Record Redaction Leave to Appeal Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanne Van Der Merwe

Applicant

Media 24 Limited

Applicant

National Lotteries Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Lotteries Board validly redacted records under PAIA.
  2. 2 What requirements must be met for lawful redaction of records under PAIA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the National Lotteries Board had provided sufficient and uncontested factual grounds for the redactions, as required by PAIA. The applicants failed to place these facts in dispute, relying instead on legal argument. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed, as the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal of the two applicants is refused with costs.
  • The two applicants are to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, payment by the one absolving the other, including the fees of two counsel.