South Africa Case Law

Baard v Allem (A5005/2021; 44725/2016)

Baard v Allem (A5005/2021; 44725/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 518 (14 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5005/2021; 44725/2016

Judges

Nichols, Matojane, Adams

The Full Court held that the order compelling the defendant to respond to the plaintiff's discovery notice under Rule 35(3) and (6) was interlocutory and not dispositive of the main action, but appealability must be assessed in light of the interests of justice. The court found that the defendant's objections based on confidentiality and relevance were not substantiated, as the documents sought were relevant to the issues in dispute, and the National Health Act permits disclosure by court order. The defendant's responses to the discovery notice were contradictory and did not comply with Rule…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Restraint Of Trade
• Doctor Patient Confidentiality
• Separation Of Issues
• Condonation

Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger (675/91)

Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger (675/91) [1993] ZASCA 145; 1993 (4) SA 842 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 619 (A) (28 September 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

675/91

Judges

Joubert, Nestadt, Kumleben, Nienaber, Harms

A doctor wrongly disclosed a patient’s HIV status to third parties. The court upheld a privacy claim under the actio iniuriarum and awarded damages.

• Doctor Patient Confidentiality
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Right To Privacy
• Sentimental Damages
• Animus Iniuriandi
• Doctor-patient-confidentiality