Van der Merwe and Another v National Lotteries Board (38293/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 240 (11 April 2014)

Van der Merwe and Another v National Lotteries Board (38293/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 240 (11 April 2014)

The court found that the respondent, the National Lotteries Board, had lawfully refused access to certain portions of its minutes under section 36(1)(b) and (c) of PAIA, as the redacted information comprised confidential financial, commercial, and technical information supplied by third parties, the disclosure of which would likely cause harm or place those parties at a disadvantage in future negotiations. The applicants did not dispute the factual basis for the respondent's claims, and the court applied the Plascon-Evans rule, deciding the matter on the respondent's version. The court held that the grounds for refusal were mandatory and that the respondent had no discretion to disclose...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 240
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 April 2014
Case Number
38293/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ebersohn AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Grounds for Refusal of Access, Redaction of Public Records, Public Interest Override
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Access to Information Act Grounds for Refusal of Access Redaction of Public Records Public Interest Override

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanne van der Merwe

Applicant

Media 24 Limited

Applicant

National Lotteries Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's refusal to provide access to requested records was lawful under PAIA.
  2. 2 Whether the redaction of minutes by the respondent was justified under section 36(1)(b) and (c) of PAIA.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest override in section 46 of PAIA applies to compel disclosure of redacted information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, the National Lotteries Board, had lawfully refused access to certain portions of its minutes under section 36(1)(b) and (c) of PAIA, as the redacted information comprised confidential financial, commercial, and technical information supplied by third parties, the disclosure of which would likely cause harm or place those parties at a disadvantage in future negotiations. The applicants did not dispute the factual basis for the respondent's claims, and the court applied the Plascon-Evans rule, deciding the matter on the respondent's version. The court held that the grounds for refusal were mandatory and that the respondent had no discretion to disclose...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.