Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
W.B v R.B and Another (D8141/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 96; 2024 (4) SA 316 (KZD) (18 December 2023)
High Court ordered limited medical disclosure in a child residence dispute, balancing privacy and the best interests of the children.
Member of Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province v Solomons; In re: Vulangengqele obo Vulangengqele v Member of Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province (13523/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 716 (21 November 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a subpoena ruling, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to appeal.
Member of Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province v Solomons In re: Vulangengqele v Member of Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province (13523/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 538 (1 September 2021)
The court found that the defendant failed to make out a proper case for the relief sought in her founding papers. The documents requested in the subpoena were described in broad and general terms, and it was not established that they were matters of public record or had been discovered in the relevant legal proceedings. The respondent's uncontested assertion that he was not in possession of the documents rendered part of the relief moot. The defendant did not follow the correct procedure for seeking disclosure of confidential patient information, which requires a substantive application justi…
Source excerpt
Pienaar v Jordaan (23324/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 173 (21 April 2006)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable need for the complete clinical record held by the respondent. Although the applicant claimed that access to the information was necessary for the exercise or protection of his rights, he did not specify the antecedent right nor show why the information was required beyond what was already available to him. The applicant had access to the adverse information and the identities of the collateral sources, and could pursue his rights through normal discovery procedures in any future litigation. The court emphasized the importanc…
Source excerpt
Explore more
