In Elite Plumbing v Casper Le Roux Attorneys, Elite Plumbing sought an order from the court ordering Casper Le Roux Attorneys to furnish it with information sought in two requests for information. The application was made in terms of section 53(1) of PAIA, which deals with requests for access to the records of private bodies.

Who should care about this judgment and why?

  • Individuals because it impacts how you seek access to information from private bodies under PAIA, requiring you to follow the procedure.
  • Private bodies because they need to follow procedural requirements under PAIA when handling requests for information.

What could you do about it?

  • Read the full judgment by downloading it.
  • Access other relevant PAIA judgments by joining the Michalsons Access to Information programme.

Our insights on the judgment

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding and complying with PAIA’s procedural mechanisms, specifically exhausting internal remedies before resorting to court action.

Under Section 78 of PAIA, a requester who has not completed the internal appeal procedure outlined in Section 74 or the complaints procedure outlined in Section 77A within a private body cannot seek relief from a court under Section 82.

Digest

Elite Plumbing sought information from the respondents under PAIA, specifically regarding funds allegedly received by the second respondent from a liquidator regarding a debt owed to Elite Plumbing. Despite formal requests, Casper Le Roux Attorneys refused to disclose the information, citing attorney-client privilege. Subsequently, Elite Plumbing filed an application in court seeking an order to compel Casper Le Roux Attorneys to disclose the requested information.

Key Legal Points

PAIA applicability: The court clarified that PAIA extends to information held by private bodies.
Procedural compliance: Section 78(1) of PAIA requires you to exhaust internal remedies, such as the complaints procedure outlined in section 77A, before approaching the court for relief. If you don’t adhere to this procedural requirement, a court application can be rendered premature.
Definition of ‘record’: The judgment reaffirmed that the term ‘record’ under PAIA encompasses any recorded information held by a private body, regardless of form or medium.

The court’s decision

The judgment lies in the interpretation of PAIA, which asserts its applicability to information held by private bodies. It highlights the necessity of procedural compliance, meaning that you must exhaust internal remedies before you seek court intervention, such as the complaints procedure outlined in section 77A. The judgment reaffirms that the definition of “record” under PAIA includes all recorded information held by private bodies, irrespective of form or medium. Furthermore, it highlights the court’s duty to interpret and apply PAIA’s provisions in a generous and purposive manner to facilitate access to information and safeguard rights. Ultimately, the judgment emphasised the significance of procedural fairness by using internal remedies as a cost-effective measure for dispute resolution before resorting to litigation.

Order

The court dismissed the application with costs.

Details of Elite Plumbing v Casper Le Roux Attorneys

  • Universal citation: [2023] ZAGPJHC 226
  • Case number: 2022/14821
  • Full name: Elite Plumbing And Industrial Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Casper Le Roux Inc Attorneys and Another

Please note: This judgment summary is not intended for a general audience. It is specifically drafted for the members of the Michalsons Access to Information programme.