WDL and Others v Gundelfinger and Others (20/24681) [2020] ZAGPJHC 408; 2022 (2) SA 272 (GJ) (21 December 2020)

WDL and Others v Gundelfinger and Others (20/24681) [2020] ZAGPJHC 408; 2022 (2) SA 272 (GJ) (21 December 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to identify with sufficient specificity any confidential information imparted to Ms Steyn that remains confidential and relevant to the subject matter of the divorce proceedings. Much of the information alleged to be confidential has either become common knowledge, been disclosed in pleadings and discovery, or is forgettable and no longer retained by Ms Steyn. The applicants did not discharge the onus required for a final interdict, and the evidential burden did not shift to the respondents. The respondents demonstrated that effective information barriers were in place, and Ms Steyn had no involvement in the divorce proceedings since joining...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 408
Parties
Applicant: W D L; Applicant: W D L N.O.; Applicant: R B N.O.; Respondent: Billy Gundelfinger; Respondent: Wandi Steyn; Respondent: A L (born B)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Case Number
20/24681
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Judgment on Application for Final Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two senior counsel.
Judges
L. Windell
Legal Topics
Conflict of Interest, Attorney Client Privilege, Final Interdict, Fiduciary Duty, Confidential Information, Inherent Jurisdiction
Family and Children Civil Procedure Conflict of Interest Attorney Client Privilege Final Interdict Fiduciary Duty Confidential Information Inherent Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W D L

Applicant

W D L N.O.

Applicant

R B N.O.

Applicant

Billy Gundelfinger

Respondent

Wandi Steyn

Respondent

A L (born B)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Judgment on Application for Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a right to protection of confidential information imparted to their former attorney, Ms Steyn, now employed by the opposing firm.
  2. 2 Whether any confidential information remains relevant and protected in the pending divorce proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have established effective information barriers to prevent misuse or disclosure of confidential information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to identify with sufficient specificity any confidential information imparted to Ms Steyn that remains confidential and relevant to the subject matter of the divorce proceedings. Much of the information alleged to be confidential has either become common knowledge, been disclosed in pleadings and discovery, or is forgettable and no longer retained by Ms Steyn. The applicants did not discharge the onus required for a final interdict, and the evidential burden did not shift to the respondents. The respondents demonstrated that effective information barriers were in place, and Ms Steyn had no involvement in the divorce proceedings since joining...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, which include the costs of two senior counsel.