Manuel v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd and another [2020] HIPR 109 (GP)

Based on an article published in the media, the applicant believed that his personal information had been unlawfully obtained and disclosed, and that he had been subjected to unlawful surveillance. The article claimed that Manuel and his wife (Ramos) had been subject to unlawful surveillance, and that their personal details, including particulars of their travel arrangements, had been collected and disclosed to the respondents.

By |2021-07-13T11:13:06+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Hudaco Trading (Pty) Ltd v Apex Superior Quality Parts (Pty) Ltd and others [2021] HIPR 167 (GJ)

In 2014, the applicant (“Hudaco”) acquired the Partquip business which conducted business in the aftermarket replacement automotive parts industry and was housed in a separate division within Hudaco. The first respondent (“Apex”) was a new competitor in the market and also supplied aftermarket replacement parts to motor vehicles and industrial bearings.

By |2021-07-13T10:35:20+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Gassner N.O v Minister of Law and Order and others [1994] HIPR 159 (C)

The plaintiff was the curator ad litem of a minor. She instituted action against the defendants, jointly and severally, for damages for loss of support arising from the death by shooting of the minor’s mother. On the basis that the second to fifth defendants were members of the South African Police at the relevant time and had been acting within the course and scope of their employment, the defendants filed a first special plea that the claim had "prescribed" in terms of section 32 of the Police Act 7 of 1958.

By |2021-07-13T10:08:32+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Clover SA (Pty) Ltd v Siqalo Foods (Pty) Ltd [2021] HIPR 174 (GP)

Bringing an urgent application, the applicant complained that the prominent use of the word "BUTTER" on the respondent's label for its "STORK BUTTER SPREAD" product misrepresented that it was pure butter and not a modified butter product. According to the applicant, the respondent’s conduct contravened sections 3 and 6 of the Agricultural Products Standards Act 119 of 1990 (the "Act") and the Regulations Relating to the Classification, Packing and Marking of Dairy Products and Imitation Dairy Products intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa, GN R1510 ("the Regulations”), published under the Act.

By |2021-07-13T09:22:45+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|