In Leuvennink v CAA, the deceased pilot’s wife sought access to airplane crash records to establish the accident’s cause. However, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) refused access, citing the unavailability of records and adherence to regulations and an aviation convention. The CAA relied on vague references to exemptions without substantiating their basis. Additionally, the refusal was justified by an international agreement and potential prejudice to international relations. The court ordered the CAA to grant access to Leuvennink.
Who should care about this judgment and why?
- Public bodies and airline authorities because it pertains to the transparency of crash investigations and compliance with access to information laws, potentially setting a precedent for future disclosure requests.
- Individuals because airlines should be transparent about their crash investigations and access to critical information concerning aviation safety.
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 emphasises the obligation of public bodies to transparently provide access to information upon request, subject to exemptions. It highlights the court’s role in upholding PAIA’s principles, which ensures that public bodies justify access refusals with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thus promoting transparency and accountability.
Furthermore, it distinguished between PAIA and PAJA, by clarifying that PAJA principles do not apply to PAIA applications. It emphasised that PAIA’s procedural requirements, rather than PAJA’s grounds for judicial review, govern access to information requests, ensuring a streamlined process for seeking information from public bodies.
Digest
Leuvennink sought access to records from the CAA following a fatal airplane accident involving her husband. Experts appointed to establish the accident’s cause deemed the CAA’s investigation report insufficient. The requested records included pilot recordings, radar plots, weather reports, and communication transcripts. She filed an opposed application under PAIA after CAA’s refusal to grant access.
Both parties initially misconstrued the nature of the application as a review under the PAJA. The CAA relied on regulations and the aviation convention to refuse access. However, their justifications lacked substance and failed to meet PAIA’s requirements.
The court’s decision
The CAA’s response was insufficient and lacked details on record searches or existence inquiries. They failed to demonstrate how disclosing the records would prejudice international relations or adhere to international agreements. The court emphasized PAIA’s supremacy over conflicting domestic legislation or international agreements.
Order
The Court ordered the CAA to:
- provide the requested records within 15 business days; and
- pay the costs of Leuvennink on a party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Details of Leuvennink v CAA
- Universal citation: [2023] ZAGPPHC 633
- Case number: 2022/12875
- Full name: Leuvennink v South African Civil Aviation Authority and Others
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.
