This is an index of the legal resources related to the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 from 2006 to 10 September 2009

General

[Journal Articles]

Van Coller, EH De Jure (2006) 39:01:163 – “Transparency and Access to Documents: A General Principle of European Community Law?”

Lewis, D ILJ(UK) (2006) 35:324-328 – ‘Whistleblowers, Reasonable Belief and Data Protection Issues”

Bosch, S SALJ (2006) 123:4:615 – “IDASA v ANC : an opportunity lost for truly promoting access to information”

Private bodies – PAIA s53(1)

[Journal Articles]

Du Toit, D ILJ (2006) 27:07:1311-1341 – “The Evolution of the Concept of ‘Unfair Discrimination’ in South African Labour Law” & IDASA v ANC (HC)

Public bodies – PAIA s18(1), s36, s37 & s82

[Constitutional Court]

Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital (GF 7074) [Court, 6.12.2007]

[2007] ZACC 24; 2008 (4) BCLR 442; 2008 (2) SA 472; [2008] JOL 21187 (CC)

Refused leave to appeal – unreasonable delay – merits not considered although certain factors taken into account including fact that report made available – see GF 6044 (SCA) below.

 

[Supreme Court of Appeal]

Claase v Information Officer of SAA (Pty) Ltd (GF 6419) [Combrinck AJA, 30.11.2006]

[2006] ZASCA 163; 2007 (5) SA 469 & [2006] JOL 18804 (SCA)

Appeal allowed  – former employer ordered to produce airline records – failure to do so inexplicable]

Mittalsteel SA Ltd v Hlatshwayo (GF 6312) [Conradie JA, 31.08.2006.

[2006] ZASCA 94; [2007] 1 All SA 1; 2007 (4) BCLR 386; 2007 (1) SA 66 & [2006] JOL 18184 (SCA)

Appeal disallowed – public body at relevant time – information to be provided – time allowed to find documents.

MEC, Roads & Public Works v Intertrade Two (Pty) Ltd (GF 6045) [Maya AJA, 27.03.06]

[2006] ZASCA 34 & [2006] JOL 17048/17346 (SCA)

Appeal disallowed – s7(1) – uniform rule 53(1)(b) – tenderer – ‘requested’ prior to review.

Unitas Hospital v Van Wyk (GF 6044) [Brand JA, 27.03.2006]

[2006] ZASCA 32; [2006] 4 All SA 231 & 2006 (4) SA 436 (SCA)

Appeal allowed – s50 – ‘required’ for exercise of protection of right – pre-action production – see GF 7074 (CC) above.

[High Court]

Brümmer v Minister of Social Development (GF 7729) [Zondi J, 16.03.2009]

[2009] 2 All SA 583; [2009] JOL 23314 (HC-WCC)

Refused review application of internal review body refusing access to information – no reasonable explanation for delay in reviewing that decision & no reasonable prospects of success on the merits – PAIA ss 32(1), 78(2) & 81(3(a) – s78(2) unconstitutional with regard to time restrictions.

Kiva v Minister of Correctional Services (GF 6361) [Plasket J, 27.07.2006]

[2007] 1 BLLR 86; (2007) 28 ILJ 597 & [2006] JOL 18512 (HC-ECG)

Application granted  – failure to promote – reasons must be provided – PAJA s 74 & PAIA s 5 applicable.

Marr v MEC Dept of Health, EC (GF 6100) [Matthee AJ, 10.04.2006]

[2006] JOL 17212 (HC-ECP)

Clinical records eventually supplied – issue of possible contempt of court against MEC referred to Director of Public Prosecutions – costs granted against MEC de bonis propriis.

Earthlife Africa (CT Branch) v Eskom Holdings Ltd (GF 6227) [Fevrier AJ, 14.03.2006]

[2006] 2 All SA 632 (HC-GSJ)

Leave to appeal refused – research & development re nuclear energy – information withheld – need to balance rights – disclosure & privacy.

[Labour Court]

NATU  v S-G, Dept of Education & Culture, KZN (GF 6963) [Pillay J, 19.02.2008]

(2008) 29 ILJ 1727 & [2008] JOL 21521 (LC)

Refused application for access to information – LRA sec 16 should have been used and not PAIA or Constitution – in addition internal remedies not exhausted – see also GF 6122 (LC) below.

[Journal Articles]

Grogan, J EL (2007) 23:01:21 – “Reasons, please!” Kiva (LC) – GF 6361

Grogan, J LLSG (2006) 12:6 – Kiva (HC) GF 6361