Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 287 (27 June 2019)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 287 (27 June 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to show any misdirection by the court a quo in its factual findings regarding exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm. The court found that AMSA had suffered and would continue to suffer significant financial loss and injury to goodwill due to the prohibition on selling slag, which constituted exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm. The harm extended beyond AMSA to downstream businesses and employees. The court also held that the prospects of success on appeal were relevant and, as found by the court a quo, were absent, further militating against the suspension of the order. The appellants did not demonstrate that they...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 287
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Environmental Affairs; Appellant: Deputy Director-General: Legal Authorisations, Compliance, and Enforcement; Respondent: Arcelomittal South Africa Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
A103/2019, 86171/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Refusing Suspension of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
WHG van der Linde, N Ranchod, E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Superior Courts Act Section 18, Exceptional Circumstances, Irreparable Harm, Waste Management Licensing, Judicial Deference, Public Importance
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Superior Courts Act Section 18 Exceptional Circumstances Irreparable Harm Waste Management Licensing Judicial Deference +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Environmental Affairs

Appellant

Deputy Director-General: Legal Authorisations, Compliance, and Enforcement

Appellant

Arcelomittal South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Refusing Suspension of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo misdirected itself in finding exceptional circumstances justifying the lifting of suspension of the order pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether Arcelomittal South Africa Limited proved irreparable harm if the suspension was not lifted.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants would suffer irreparable harm if the suspension was lifted.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to show any misdirection by the court a quo in its factual findings regarding exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm. The court found that AMSA had suffered and would continue to suffer significant financial loss and injury to goodwill due to the prohibition on selling slag, which constituted exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm. The harm extended beyond AMSA to downstream businesses and employees. The court also held that the prospects of success on appeal were relevant and, as found by the court a quo, were absent, further militating against the suspension of the order. The appellants did not demonstrate that they...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.