The High Court rules that surveillance evidence is lawful under POPIA when it serves the defence of a legal right. The ruling allows Netcare to use the evidence in its defence against a multimillion-rand lawsuit.
The Supreme Court of Appeal did not address the substantive issues, finding that a change in circumstances rendered the appeal moot.
The High Court overturns a lower court’s decision in favour of a financial adviser whose commissions were clawed back.
The High Court in Cape Town rejects the Road Accident Fund’s contention that the Mlambo judgment has altered the legal landscape.
A regulatory expert believes the judgment misinterpreted key legal principles in its ruling on the RAF’s obligation to reimburse medical schemes.
The Department of Basic Education has filed a review application, aiming to have the notice barring the publication of the matric results declared unconstitutional.
The judgment strikes down restrictive aspects of the grant regulations, ordering the government to increase the grant and ensure that no eligible applicants are excluded.
The High Court confirms the Prudential Authority’s right to challenge Tribunal decisions while affirming the limits of retrospective penalties.
The High Court describes the municipality’s persistent challenges to the fund’s applications as an example of the destruction of the country’s constitutional ethos.
The Engineering Industries Pension Fund and the Metal Industries Provident Fund use the personal liability provisions in the Pension Funds Act.
The insurer successfully upheld the enforceability of a guarantee after a civil engineering company failed to complete a project because of community disruptions.
The High Court says Discovery Health misconstrued the scope of the judgment that set aside the RAF’s first directive on the payment of medical scheme members’ claims.
Discovery Health’s quest for reimbursement from the RAF for medical expenses incurred by road accident victims has faced multiple legal hurdles, with new RAF directives complicating the situation.
The High Court’s ruling emphasises the duty of directors to disclose conflicts of interest and highlights the importance of complying with corporate and B-BBEE laws.
The judgment highlights the impact of Steinhoff’s collapse on retirement funds and the public’s right to understand the nation’s biggest corporate scandal.
Applicants must fully disclose all relevant information during underwriting, even if it was divulged in past applications.
Credit providers must quantify their reasonable enforcement costs promptly to allow for an agreement to be reinstated.
Notifications
