Kevin Hopkins

ADMITTED AS ADVOCATE: 1999
CALLED TO BAR: 2005
COUNTRIES OF ADMISSION: SOUTH AFRICA

PRACTICE AREAS

Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Regulatory Law.

QUALIFICATIONS

Academic: BA, LLB (Rhodes), LLM (Wits)
Professional: Member of the Johannesburg Bar (from 2005)

PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE

Before joining the Bar as a fulltime Member, Kevin Hopkins was an academic at the Oliver Schreiner School of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand where he taught aspects of public law and wrote for a number of law journals and other legal texts published inter alia by Juta, LexisNexis and the Verloren van Themaat Institute, which included the South African Law Journal, SA Public Law, Obiter, Theoria, the African Journal of Human Rights and the South African Yearbook of International Law. He also co-authored chapters in books and loose leaf publications, such as Constitutional Law of South Africa (Juta).

Mr Hopkins is currently the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar of South Africa’s Human Rights Committee. He is also Chairman of the Board of the Education Endowment Fund

As a practitioner at the Bar, Mr Hopkins specializes in constitutional law and administrative law cases. This involves mostly regulatory matters such as environmental law and mining law; medical schemes, pension funds and the financial services industry; energy and telecommunications; competition law and policy; and procurement. Whilst at the Johannesburg Bar, over the past 10 years or so, he has appeared both as junior counsel and lead counsel in a number of important cases in both the Supreme Court of Appeal as well as the Constitutional Court. Mr Hopkins has acted as counsel in more than 50 reported cases. Amongst them are the following:


Constitutional and Administrative Law Matters

  • Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2007 (7) BCLR 691 (CC) and [2007] ZACC 5 in the Constitutional Court and before that Napier v Barkhuizen 2006 (2) All SA 469 (SCA); 2006 (4) SA 1 (SCA); and [2005] ZASCA 119 in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerned the proper application of the Bill of Rights to contract law and the development of the private law via the public policy doctrine. It concerned a contractual time-bar clause contained in a short-term insurance policy. On brief from Rynhardt Kruger Attorneys.
  • Bredenkamp & Others v Standard Bank 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA); 2010 (9) BCLR 892 (SCA); 2010 (4) All SA 113 (SCA); and [2010] ZASCA 75 in the Supreme Court of Appeal; and two Johannesburg High Court cases reported as 2009 (5) SA 304 (GSJ); 2009 (3) All SA 339 (GSJ); and before that as 2009 (5) SA 304 (GSJ); 2009 (3) All SA 339 (GSJ); and [2009] ZAGPJHC 4.    The case concerned the constitutionality of a term in a standard-form banking contract. It raised questions of lawfulness and enforceability in light of the public policy doctrine as extended in the Barkhuizen case. On brief from Wertheim Becker Attorneys (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others (Mont Blanc Projects and Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another as Amici Curiae) 2008 (4) SA 572 (W); 2008 (2) All SA 298 (W); and [2008] ZAGPHC 30 in the Johannesburg High Court. The case concerned the proper interpretation of Parts A and B in Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution and questioned within whose functional area of competence, local government versus provincial government, issues of town planning properly belong. On brief from Moodie & Robertson Attorneys (led by Fanie du Plessis SC). This case eventually went to the Constitutional Court as City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others 2010 (6) SA 182 (CC); 2010 (9) BCLR 859 (CC) but Hopkins was not involved in the Constitutional Court.
  • Flynn v Farr NO 2009 (1) SA 584 (C); and [2009] ZAWCHC 196 in the Cape Town High Court.  This was an unfair discrimination case. It concerned the definition of a child in the Intestate Succession Act and the fact that such definition included a biological and legally adopted child, but excluded a child that had been factually but not legally adopted. On brief from Carol Jooste Attorneys.
  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 2013 (5) SA 571 (CC); 2013 (10) BCLR 1159 (CC); 2013 JDR 1507 (CC) 2012; and [2013] ZACC 26 in the Constitutional Court; and JDR 2272 (GNP) and [2012] ZAGPPHC 329 in the Pretoria High Court. This case concerned the separation of powers doctrine. Sections 2 and 3 of the Performing Animals Protection Act which tasked magistrates with a licensing function was declared unconstitutional. A mixture of functions and responsibilities which makes no distinction between administrative and judicial functions by judicial officers is not permitted in a constitutional dispensation. On brief from Marston & Taljaardt Attorneys (assisted by Dirk van Zyl).
  • Cross-Border Road Transport Agency v Central African Road Services (Pty) Ltd and Another 2015 (7) BCLR 761 (CC); 2015 (5) SA 370 (CC); and [2015] ZACC 12 in the Constitutional Court. The case concerned the doctrine of objective constitutional invalidity and notion of retrospective application of invalidity. The case questioned what the default position is: is it full retrospectivity or prospective invalidity? The case also considered the power of courts to vary the retrospectivity of an order of constitutional invalidity. On brief from Glyn Marias Attorneys.
  • Magidiwana & Another v President of the Republic of South Africa [2015] ZAGPPHC 637 in the Pretoria High Court. The case involved the seeking of a mandamus to compel the President of the Republic of South Africa to release the report of the Farlam Commission which followed an investigation into the Marikana massacre. In issue was the jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Constitutional Court as per section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. On brief from the State Attorney (led by Hilton Epstein SC).
  • South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development 2013 (2) SA 583 (GNP); 2013 (2) All SA 96 (GNP); 2013 JDR 0214 (GSJ); and [2013] ZAGPPHC 34 in a specially convened Full Bench of the Pretoria High Court and then after that 2014 (4) BCLR 430 (CC); 2014 (3) SA 134 (CC); and [2014] ZACC 2 in the Constitutional Court. This case involved a constitutional challenge to the Contingency Fees Act on the basis that it was irrational and violated both section 1(c) and 9 of the Constitution. On brief from the South African Personal Injury Lawyers Association (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality 2013 (4) SA 225 (CC); 2013 (7) BCLR 791 (CC); and [2013] ZACC 11 in the Constitutional Court. The case concerned the right of a citizen to refuse to pay her rates and taxes on account of the municipality failing to perform its obligations versus the right of a municipality to terminate a citizen’s electricity supply for non-payment of rates and taxes which forms a component of the bill due to the municipality. At issue were the constitutional powers of local government and the constitutionality of a municipality’s by-laws. On brief from Majavu Inc (led by Jimmy Claasen SC).
  • National Treasury & Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance & Others 2012 (6) 223 (CC); 2012 (11) BCLR 1148 (CC); and [2012] ZACC 18 in the Constitutional Court. This is the e-tolling case which involved the separation of powers doctrine and the circumstances under which a review of a polycentric decision ought to be tolerated. On brief from Glyn Marias Attorneys (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice [2016] ZACC 46; 2017 (1) SA SACR 284 (CC) and 2017 (4) BCLR 517 CC) in the Constitutional Court where the issue concerns the powers of the NSPCA; and 2016 (1) SACR 308 (SCA) and [2015] ZASCA 206 in the Supreme Court of Appeal; and before that in the Pretoria High Court where the case concerned a direct challenge to section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The impugned section allows natural persons but not juristic persons to become private prosecutors. The case was run as a section 9(1) in the Bill of Rights case: that the section irrationally differentiated between groups of people with the result that one did not receive the same benefits of the law as the other. The Constitutional Court, without deciding the constitutionality of section 7(1), declared that the NSPCA had the power to be a private prosecutor under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On brief from Marston & Taljaardt Attorneys (assisted by Sandra Freese and Lesetja Nkoane).
  • Congress of the People & Another v Shilowa & Others 2012 JDR 1738 (GSJ); and [2012] ZAGPJHC 172 heard in the Johannesburg High Court. The case involved the internal workings of a political party qua voluntary association. It also involved an application for an interim interdict that would effectively have prevented the party from preparing for national elections. This raised various constitutional issues implicating democratic values. On brief from Wertheim Becker Attorneys (led by Hilton Epstein SC).
  • Witwatersrand African Taxi Owners Association v MEC Roads and Transport 2010 JDR 1002 (GSJ); [2010] ZAGPJHC 68 in the Johannesburg High Court. The case involved a taxi association reviewing the MEC’s decision to ban the association from a certain route that it was previously utilizing. The review implicated the ultra vires doctrine. On brief from Schindlers Attorneys.
  • Border Deep Sea Angling Association v Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2014 JDR 2510 (GP); [2014] ZAGPPHC 1038 in the Pretoria High Court. This was a review against the Minister’s decision to impose a complete ban on fishing of the Red Steenbras in circumstances where there was inadequate research placed before decision-maker to justify the decision to impose the ban. Rationality as a ground of review was implicated on account of insufficient facts being placed before the Minister. On brief from Morajane Du Plessis Attorneys.
  • Nova Property Group Holdings v Cobbett 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA), 2016 (3) All SA 32 (SCA), and [2016] ZASCA 63 heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal and before that Cobbett & Another v Nova Property Group & Another [2014] ZAGPPHC 836 in the Pretoria High Court. The case concerned the proper interpretation of section 26(2) of the Companies Act No. 71 of 2008 in light of section 39(2) of the Constitution as informed by the constitutional right to privacy per section 14 of the Bill of Rights. On brief from Faber Goertz Ellis Attorneys (led by Jose Brett SC with Don Mahon).
  • South African Poultry Association v Minister of Agriculture & Others [2016] ZAGPPHC 862 in the Pretoria High Court. The case involved a urgent review of the Government’s promulgated but not yet operative regulations over permissible brining levels. At issue were aspects of procedural fairness in the regulation-making process and the degree of appropriate public participation required by section 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000; also the proper approach that courts should adopt when treating Government experts which the required degree of deference. On brief from Fairbridges Wertheim Becker (led by Hilton Epstein SC and assisted by Teneille Govender).
  • NCP Chlorchem (Pty) Ltd v National Energy Regulator of South Africa & Others  [2016] ZAGPJHC 300; 2017 (1) All SA 950 (GJ) in the Johannesburg High Court. The case concerned the application of section 156(1) of the Constitution read with Schedule 4B and whether a private company could contract directly with Eskom or whether it is obliged to purchase the electricity that it consumes from the municipality in whose area it resides. On brief from Kunene Ramapala Inc (led by Herman van Eden SC and assisted by Tiro Moretlwe).
  • Off-Beat Holiday Club v Sanbonani Holiday Spa [2017] ZACC 15; 2017 (5) SA 9 (CC) and 2017 (7) BCLR 916 (CC) in the Constitutional Court and before that 2016 (6) SA 181 (SCA) and 2016 (2) All SA 704 (SCA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerned prescription and whether a minority shareholder’s claim against oppressive conduct by the majority under section 252 of the Companies Act of 1973 constitutes a “debt” for the purposes of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. The case also involved the proper interpretation of section 11(d) in light of section 39(2) of the Constitution. On brief from David Feldman Attorneys (led by Hilton Epstein SC and assisted by Teneille Govender).

Environmental and Mining Law Matters

  • Khabisi NO v Aquarella Investments 83 (Pty) Ltd 2008 (4) SA 195 (T), 2007 (4) All SA 1439 (T), 2007 (11) BCLR 1243 (T) and [2007] ZAGPPHC 116 in the Pretoria High Court. The case concerned the proper interpretation of the EIA Regulations to the National Environmental Management Act and the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. It also concerned proper authorization under section 31 of NEMA and the issue of collateral attacks on administrative decisions in environmental law. On brief from Ivan Pauw & Partners (led by Eric Dunn SC).
  • Magaliesberg Protection Association v MEC of Agriculture & Others 2013 (3) All SA 416 (SCA); 2013 JDR 1363 (SCA); and [2013] ZASCA 80 in the Supreme Court of Appeal; and before that [2012] NWHC 8 in the High Court. This was a review of ex post facto authorization granted for the construction of a hotel in a protected area under section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act. One of issues to be considered in the demolition of the hotel was the impact that such would have on the environment. The role of economic considerations was also considered within the broader administrative decision-making process, ie. the constitutional right to a healthy environment versus social development. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Gideon Anderson t/a Zonneblom Boerdery v Department of Water & Environmental Affairs [2010] ZAWT 4. This case was heard in the Water Tribunal and concerned the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeals brought by certain classes of people. It also concerned the standing of appellants under the Water Act. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Kasimira Trading 82 (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources & Others 2014 JDR 0978 (GP); and [2014] ZAGPPHC 593 in the Pretoria High Court. The case involved the proper interpretation and application of the Transitional Arrangements in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. It was a review of a decision taken by the Department of Mineral Resources to convert an old order prospecting right into a new order right. The judgment examined the process of transition and the formalities required. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Long Beach Homeowners Association v Great Kei Municipality & Others [2016] ZAGPPHC 619. This case was heard in the Pretoria High Court. One issue asked whether the MEC could permissibly uphold an appeal brought under section 43 of NEMA for reasons not contained in the original grounds of appeal. Another concerned the proper interpretation of section 3(3)(a) of the National Forests Act. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Long Beach Homeowners Association v MEC for Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (Eastern Cape) [2017] ZAECGHC 57 in the Grahamstown High Court. This case concerned the proper interpretation of section 17(3) of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 and at what stage of an environmental dispute an aggrieved citizen can compel the State into engaging a statutory conciliation or mediation process. On brief from BKM Attorneys.  

Regulatory Law: Includes the Competition Commission, Medical Schemes Council, Pension Funds Administrator, Banking and Financial Services Sector; various Professional Bodies; and Labour Fora

  • AgriWire (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the Competition Commission [2011] ZACT 17 in the Competition Tribunal. The case concerned the jurisdiction of the Competition Tribunal versus the High Court when determining reviews brought under section 27(1)(a) of the Competition Act. A review was launched in the High Court and a stay was sought in respect of complaint proceedings instituted by the Competition Commission in the Competition Tribunal. There was uncertainty over which forum has the requisite competence to hear the review. On brief from Roestoff & Kruse Attorneys (Led by Fanie du Plessis SC).
  • AgriWire (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the Competition Commission 2013 (5) SA 484 (SCA); 2012 (4) All SA 365 (SCA); and [2012] ZASCA 134 in the Supreme Court of Appeal and 2011 JDR 835 (GNP); and [2011] ZAGPPHC 117 in the High Court. This was a review of the legality of the Corporate Leniency Policy adopted by the Competition Commission. The case questioned the powers of the Commission to create and enforce a policy granting immunity to a member of a cartel who comes forward as a whistleblower in circumstances where that power was not expressly contained in the Commission’s own enabling statute. On brief from Roestoff & Kruse Attorneys. (Led by Fanie du Plessis SC).
  • Registrar of Medical Schemes v Suremed Medical Scheme 2012 (2) SA 512 (SCA); [2011] ZASCA 173. This case concerned the compulsory merger of two medical schemes. It was about the proper interpretation and application of the merger provisions of the Medical Schemes Act. On brief from Webber Wentzel Attorneys (Led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Eppel v Discovery Medical Scheme [2009] ZAGPJHC 54. The case turned on the proper interpretation of the Medical Schemes Act and concerned a specialist medical practitioner who had been blacklisted by a medical scheme. On brief from Gishen Gilchrest Attorneys (Led by Hilton Epstein SC).
  • South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development 2013 (2) SA 583 (GNP); 2013 (2) All SA 96 (GNP); 2013 JDR 0214 (GSJ); and [2013] ZAGPPHC 34 in the Full Bench of the Pretoria High Court. The case involved the legal profession and the regulation of speculative fees permissibly charged by practitioners under the Contingency Fees Act. On brief from the South African Personal Injury Lawyers Association (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality v Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd & Another [2016] ZACC 37; 2017 (1) BCLR 64 (CC); (2017) 38 ILJ 295 (CC); 2017 (3) BLLR 258 (CC) in the Constitutional Court; (2016) 37 ILJ 128 (LAC); 2016 (1) BLLR 13 (LAC); and [2015] ZALAC 41 in the Labour Appeal Court; and Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd & Another v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality [2014] ZALCJHB 180 in the Johannesburg Labour Court. The case concerned the proper interpretation and application of section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. A municipality outsourced an electricity supply function to a private company because the municipality was unable to do its own reticulation. The outsourcing contract was later cancelled and/or avoided and the question arose as to what that effect ought to have on the enlarged labour force employed by the private company. The case was about the correct test to be employed for determining when a business is transferred as a going concern (assisted by Sandra Freese in the Labour Court and led by Andrew Redding SC in both the Labour Appeal Court and the Constitutional Court).
  • The series of Johannesburg Stock Exchange v ZAR X Exchange cases heard before the Financial Services Appeal Board which included various interlocutory applications brought under section 26 of the Financial Services Board Act by both the JSE and another to suspend a new exchange from going live and operating under an exchange licence granted to it by the Registrar in terms of section 9 of the Financial Markets Act. On brief from BKM (led by Leonard Harris SC before the FSB Appeal Board)
  • NCP Chlorchem (Pty) Ltd v National Energy Regulator of South Africa & Others  [2016] ZAGPJHC 300; 2017 (1) All SA 950 (GJ) in the Johannesburg High Court. The case concerned the application of section 156(1) of the Constitution read with Schedule 4B and whether a private company could contract directly with Eskom or whether it is obliged to purchase the electricity that it consumes from the municipality in whose area it resides and undertakes its business. On brief from Kunene Ramapala Inc (led by Herman van Eden SC and assisted by Tiro Moretlwe).
  • Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4U (Pty) Ltd [2017] ZAGPPHC 40 in the Pretoria High Court. This case concerned the implementation of aspects of the road traffic management system in contravention of the regulatory framework. On brief from Majavu Inc (Assisted by Ayitey Ayayee).  
  • Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation [2017] ZALCJHB 198 in the Johannesburg Labour Court. This case concerned section 197 of the Labour Relations Act and, more specifically, whether an Organ of State performing a statutory regulatory function could be said to have acquired a business as a going concern. On brief from Dexter Selepe Attorneys (led by Andrew Redding SC).  

Legal Practice and Court Procedure

  • Tecmed Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health 2012 (4) All SA 149 (SCA); and [2012] ZASCA 64 in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The matter involved an appeal where the issue had become academic. The meaning and proper application of section 21A(1) of the Superior Courts Act was in issue in that a judgment would have no practical effect or result. On brief from Schindlers Attorneys (led by Jose Brett SC).
  • National Treasury & Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance & Others 2012 (6) 223 (CC); 2012 (11) BCLR 1148 (CC); and [2012] ZACC 18 in the Constitutional Court. The case dealt with practice and procedure in Constitutional Court in the context of the joinder of intervening parties. On brief from Glyn Marias Attorneys (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Congress of the People v Lekota 2010 JDR 1551 (GSJ); and [2010] ZAGPJHC 132 in the Johannesburg High Court. This was an appeal to the Full Bench and dealt with the proper way to prosecute an appeal under Uniform Rule 49. On brief from Wertheim Becker Attorneys.
  • De la Guerre v Ronald Bobroff & Partners and Others 2013 JDR 0213 (GNP); and [2013] ZAGPPHC 33 in the Full Bench of the Pretoria High Court and later Ronald Bobroff & Partners v De la Guerre 2014 (3) SA 134 (CC) and 2014 (4) BCLR 430 (CC) in the Constitutional Court. The case involved an application to stay a matter pending the outcome of a different matter that would have an effect. It also stands as authority for the proposition that one cannot take a point in limine without pleading over on the merits. On brief from the South African Personal Injury Lawyers Association (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Sibuya Game Reserve & Lodge & Others v Cook & Others 2014 JDR 2726 (ECG); and [2014] ZAECGHC 110 in the Grahamstown High Court. The case concerned the requirements for pleading authority to litigate on a corporation’s behalf in motion court proceedings. It also concerned an applicant’s ability to rectify a defficiency in reply and the requirements for a permissible ratification. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Long Beach Homeowners Association v Great Kei Municipality & Others 2015 JDR 1908 (GP); and [2015] ZAGPPHC 642 in the Pretoria High Court. The case concerned the proper way for a litigant in motion court proceedings to get an additional affidavit before court under Uniform Rule 6(5)(e). The case also scrutinized the special duty on the State in litigation and the appropriateness of punitive costs where its conduct falls short. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Road Freight Association v De Klerk Marias & Others 2014 JDR 2105 (GP); and [2014] ZAGPPHC 770 heard in the Pretoria High Court. The case involved a voluntary association that represents trucking companies preventing the dissipation of funds obtained pursuant to an alleged fraudulent scam. It dealt the requirements of an anti-dissipation interdict needed to preserve the bank accounts implicated in the scam including that of an attorney’s practice. On brief from Glyn Marais Inc
  • Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v NCP Chlorchem (Pty) Ltd [2015] ZAGPJHC 234 in the Johannesburg High Court. The case concerned an application for leave to amend particulars of claim some six weeks before the trial, the role of prejudice was considered. On brief from Kunene Ramapala Inc (led by Herman van Eden SC and assisted by Tiro Moretlwe).
  • Nova Property Group Holdings v Cobbett 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA), 2016 (3) All SA 32 (SCA), and [2016] ZASCA 63 heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerned the appealability of interlocutory applications and the noted shift away from the old test of “orders that are final in effect” to the new test of “interests of justice”. On brief from Faber Goertz Ellis Attorneys (led by Jose Brett SC with Don Mahon).
  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice [2016] ZACC 46 in the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court declared that the NSPCA had the power to be a private prosecutor under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In so doing it held that a party is entitled to rely on a point of law external to the pleadings when that point has been explored at the hearing. On brief from Marston & Taljaardt Attorneys (assisted by Sandra Freese and Lesetja Nkoane).
  • Ferreira v ZTE South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZAGPPHC 999 in the Pretoria High Court. The case concerned the proper application of the test for absolution from the instance by a trial court and whether the credibilty of the plaintiff’s witnesses can permissibly be considered at that stage. On brief from Glyn Marais Inc.

Private Law Cases: Commercial Litigation, Company Law, Contract Law and Delict

  • Interpark v Joubert 2010 JDR 0554 (GSJ); and [2010] ZAGPJHC 39 in the Johannesburg High Court. This was a restraint of trade case where the enforceability of the covenant was measured against the impact of Bill of Rights on the contract. It also considered the meaning of a protectable interest in the context of restraint of trade agreements. On brief from Attorney David Kahn.
  • Branco Milenkovic v Moffat Qiti & Boxing South Africa 2014 JDR 2427 (GJ); and [2014] ZAGPJHC 308 in the Johannesburg High Court. This was a defamation case where the media published statements made by the CEO of Boxing South Africa that defamed a prominent international boxing promoter. The quantum awarded by the Court was unusually high. On brief from Majavu Inc.
  • Bredenkamp & Others v Standard Bank 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA); 2010 (9) BCLR 892 (SCA); 2010 (4) All SA 113 (SCA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerned the right of a commercial bank to close a customer’s account for any reason – good, bad or indifferent – on the basis of a termination on notice clause even if the result would leave the customer unbanked. The matter was resolved according to pacta servanda sunt.  On brief from Wertheim Becker Attorneys (led by Martin Brassey SC).
  • Cook v Hesber Impala (Pty) Ltd & Others [2016] ZAGPJHC 23 in the Johannesburg High Court. The case concerned the validity of a resolution taken by a company’s board of directors, and implicated section 75 of the Companies Act of 2008 on personal financial interests; section 76 on fiduciary duties and section 162 on delinquency. On brief from BKM Attorneys.
  • Nova Property Group Holdings v Cobbett 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA), 2016 (3) All SA 32 (SCA), and [2016] ZASCA 63 heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal and before that Cobbett v Nova Property Group & Another [2014] ZAGPPHC 836 in the Pretoria High Court. The case concerned section 26(2) of the Companies Act No. 71 of 2008 and the right of access to a company’s share register and, in particular whether such right is qualified or unqualified. On brief from Faber Goertz Ellis Attorneys (led by Jose Brett SC with Don Mahon).

Procurement matters

  • MacP Construction (Pty) Ltd v Greater Tzaneen Municipality 2012 JDR 0614 (GNP); and [2012] ZAGPPHC 55 in the Pretoria High Court. Civil engineering and construction tender. Was it permissible for the unsuccessful tenderer to review the decision to award the tender without following a possible internal remedy that provided the aggrieved person with a channel to complain to the municipal manager. The case also involved matters of scoring bidders on price and functionality. On brief from Farber Goertz Ellis Attorneys.

CONTACT DETAILS

Email Kevin Hopkins

kevinhopkins@law.co.za

[t]: 011 535 1800

[c]: 083 325 5700