Wagener and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Another (215/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 427 (15 June 2018)

Wagener and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Another (215/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 427 (15 June 2018)

The court found that the interlocutory application was bona fide and aimed at aligning the pleadings with the real issues in the review application, particularly the dispute regarding privilege that arose after the answering affidavit was filed. The proposed amendment and supplementary affidavit would facilitate proper ventilation of the dispute and cause no injustice to the respondents, who would have the opportunity to respond in accordance with the rules. The court held that the question of jurisdiction over the substantive review is not relevant to the determination of the interlocutory application, as the High Court retains jurisdiction to regulate its own pending proceedings....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 427
Parties
Applicant: Marianne Wagener; Applicant: Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc.; Respondent: Competition Commission of South Africa; Respondent: Mr Thembinkosi Bonakele N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Case Number
215/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and File Supplementary Founding Affidavit
Outcome
Leave to amend the notice of motion and file a supplementary founding affidavit in the review application is granted. Respondents to pay costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Review of Administrative Action, Jurisdiction of High Court
Civil Procedure Competition Law Amendment of Pleadings Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege Review of Administrative Action Jurisdiction of High Court

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marianne Wagener

Applicant

Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc.

Applicant

Competition Commission of South Africa

Respondent

Mr Thembinkosi Bonakele N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and File Supplementary Founding Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their notice of motion in the review application and file a supplementary founding affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment and supplementary affidavit are bona fide and facilitate proper ventilation of the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are obliged to produce privileged documents or a list thereof to the Competition Commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interlocutory application was bona fide and aimed at aligning the pleadings with the real issues in the review application, particularly the dispute regarding privilege that arose after the answering affidavit was filed. The proposed amendment and supplementary affidavit would facilitate proper ventilation of the dispute and cause no injustice to the respondents, who would have the opportunity to respond in accordance with the rules. The court held that the question of jurisdiction over the substantive review is not relevant to the determination of the interlocutory application, as the High Court retains jurisdiction to regulate its own pending proceedings....

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the notice of motion and file a supplementary founding affidavit in the review application is granted. Respondents to pay costs.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to amend their notice of motion in the review application by replacing the prayers in Part B with those in the amended Part B annexure 'X'.
  • The applicants are granted leave to file the supplementary founding affidavit attached to the notice of motion in the review application.