Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ) |
Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd
2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ)
2009 (5) SA p531
Citation |
2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ) |
Case No |
08/36580 |
Court |
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg |
Judge |
Malan J |
Heard |
March 16, 2009 |
Judgment |
April 15, 2009 |
Counsel |
WJ de Bruyn and M Welz for the applicants. |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E
Arbitration — Arbitration agreement — Naturalia — Whether including English F law concept of 'implied undertaking' of confidentiality by party to whom discovery has been made not to use documents disclosed in other proceedings — Applicants in contempt proceedings seeking to rely on documents disclosed by respondent in arbitration proceedings between parties - Semble: Even if 'implied undertaking' forming part of South African law, facts falling within two of recognised exceptions to rule — G Accordingly, documents disclosed in arbitration proceedings being admissible in contempt proceedings.
Discovery and inspection — Confidential documents — Court has discretion to place limitations on litigants' right of inspection and copying — Circumstances in which discovered documents may be used in other proceedings H — English practice of 'implied undertaking' discussed.
Discovery and inspection — Discovery — Documents — Use of discovered documents in other proceedings — Applicants in contempt proceedings seeking to rely on documents disclosed by respondent in arbitration proceedings between parties — Whether naturalia of arbitration agreement I including English law 'implied undertaking' of confidentiality by party to whom discovery has been made not to use documents disclosed in other proceedings — Semble: Even if 'implied undertaking' forming part of South African law, facts falling within two of recognised exceptions to rule — Accordingly, documents disclosed in arbitration proceedings being admissible in contempt proceedings. J
2009 (5) SA p532
Headnote : Kopnota
A The respondent (Gallo) launched contempt proceedings against the applicants in the High Court. In support of its application, it sought to use a number of documents and certain information derived from those documents, all of which came to its knowledge after the applicants had disclosed them on discovery during an arbitration which preceded the present application. The applicants sought an interdict prohibiting Gallo from using B those documents in the contempt proceedings and from using any information derived from them. The applicants, in addition, sought the striking-out of all such documents and information from the founding papers in the contempt application. The applicants contended that the English law notion of an implied undertaking by a litigant, to whom discovery had been made, not to use the documents disclosed in other proceedings or for an C ulterior purpose, which had been incorporated by implication into South African law in the context of civil proceedings, also applied to arbitration proceedings.
Held, that there was no legislative basis for the privacy and confidentiality of arbitration proceedings in South Africa. An arbitration agreement could expressly provide that the proceedings and the award are private and D confidential, but 'even in the absence of an express provision to this effect, such a term will be implied.' The term suggested seemed to be a term implied by law as being one of the naturalia of the agreement to arbitrate. Courts had the inherent power to develop the law by implying a term into particular types of agreements, thereby formulating a new rule of law. That would be done cautiously and on grounds of policy. (Paragraph E [16] at 545H - 546B/C.)
Held, further, that, however, the court was not required to determine whether the English 'implied undertaking' formed part of South African law. Even if the court accepted that the English rule had been accepted in South Africa, there were a number of exceptions to the rule. Two of these were particularly relevant. First, disclosure was permitted when, and to the F extent to which, it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitrating party. In the current context, the use of the arbitration documents to found a cause of action for contempt of court against another arbitrating party would be 'reasonably necessary'. Second, English law permitted disclosure of arbitration evidence and documents where it was in the interests of justice to do so. Although it had been said G that leave of the court was required before disclosure could be made, in an application for contempt of court that should not be required. (Paragraph [17] at 548C - 549A.)
Held, accordingly, that the application to strike out was dismissed. (Paragraph [20] at 550C.)
Cases Considered
Annotations H
Reported cases
Southern Africa
Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A): referred to
Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd 2006 (1) SA 350 (T) (2006 (4) BCLR 492): referred to I
City of Cape Town (CMC Administration) v Bourbon-Leftley and Another NNO 2006 (3) SA 488 (SCA) ([2006] 1 All SA 561): referred to
Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc and Another v Rheem South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others 1980 (3) SA 1093 (W): referred to
Ex parte Sapan Trading (Pty) Ltd 1995 (1) SA 218 (W): referred to J
2009 (5) SA p533
Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): referred to A
Federal Wine and Brandy Co Ltd v Kantor 1958 (4) SA 735 (E): referred to
Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (Gauteng) v MEC for Education, Gauteng 2002 (1) SA 660 (T): referred to
Ferreira v Endley 1966 (3) SA 618 (E): referred to
General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd v Goldberg 1912 TPD 494: referred to B
Giddey NO v JC Barnard and Partners 2007 (5) SA 525 (CC) (2007 (2) BCLR 125): referred to
Gore v Amalgamated Mining Holdings 1985 (1) SA 294 (C): referred to
Lenz Township Co (Pty) Ltd v Munnick and Others 1959 (4) SA 567 (T): referred to
Maxwell and Another v Rosenberg and Others 1927 WLD 1: referred to C
Rellams (Pty) Ltd v James Brown & Hamer Ltd 1983 (1) SA 556 (N): referred to
Schoeman v Constantia Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (6) SA 313 (SCA) ([2003] 6 All SA 642): compared
South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2005 (3) SA 323 (SCA) ([2004] 4 All SA 168): referred to D
Van Nieuwkerk v McCrae 2007 (5) SA 21 (W): referred to
Van Vuuren v Agricura Laboratoria (Edms) Bpk 1974 (2) SA 324 (NC): referred to.
Foreign
Australia
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman E [1995] HCA 19 ((1995) 128 ALR 391; (1995) 69 ALJR 404; (1995) 183 CLR 10): referred to.
Canada
Juman v Douchette [2008] 1 SCR 157: referred to
Tanner v Clark (2003) 63 OR (3d) 508 (CA): referred to.
England F
Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1977] App LR 12/19 (CA): dicta in paras [36] and [38] applied
Alterskye v Scott [1948] 1 All ER 469 (Ch D): referred to
Church of Scientology of California v Department of Health and Social Security [1979] 1 WLR 723 (CA): referred to G
Crest Homes plc v Marks and Others [1987] 1 AC 829 (HL) ([1987] 2 All ER 1074): dictum at 860G - H applied
Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] EWCA 1745: referred to
Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 1 All ER 890 (CA) ([1990] 1 WLR 1205): referred to
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 193 (CA): referred to H
Halcon International Inc v Shell Transport and Trading Co and Others (1997) RPC 79 121: referred to
Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel and Others v Steuart J Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 243 (QB): referred to
Marcel v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1992] Ch 225 (CA) ([1992] 1 All ER 72): referred to I
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] 3 All ER 677 (CA): referred to
Scally and Others v Southern Health and Social Services Board and Another [1992] 1 AC 294 (HL) 307: referred to
Sunderland Steamship P and I Association v Gatoil International (The Lorenzo Halcoussi) [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 180 (QB) 184: referred to J
2009 (5) SA p534
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924) 1 KB 461 (CA): referred to. A
Case Information
Application to strike out. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.
WJ de Bruyn and M Welz for the applicants. B
P Ginsburg SC (with G Marriott) for the respondent.
Cur adv vult.
Postea (April 15). C
Judgment
Malan J:
[1] The respondent (Gallo) has launched contempt proceedings against the applicants. In support of its application it wants to use a number of D documents and certain information derived from those documents, all of which came to Gallo's knowledge in consequence of the applicants' having disclosed them on discovery during an arbitration which preceded the present application. The applicants seek an interdict prohibiting Gallo from using those documents in the contempt proceedings and from using any information derived from them. The applicants, in E addition, seek the striking-out of all such documents and information from the founding papers in the contempt application. The parties have been involved in previous litigation in different capacities. The directors of the first applicant are the second to sixth applicants. Gallo is the applicant in the contempt application and the applicants are the F respondents. Gallo is the claimant in the arbitration and the first applicant the defendant.
[2] On 5 April 2002 the first applicant and Gallo concluded an agreement of sale in terms whereof Gallo acquired the first applicant's shareholding in CDT, a company. Pursuant to the sale CDT became a G wholly owned subsidiary of Gallo. Subsequently, a dispute developed between the parties regarding a restraint of trade provision in the sale agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giving Practical Effect to Good Faith in the Law of Contract
...26; furt her see Bradfield Christie’s Law of Contrac t in South Africa 428 .91 See Replicatio n Technology Group v Gallo Af rica Ltd 2009 5 SA 531 (GSJ) para 16 n 49; South Afr ican Forestry Co Lt d v York Timber s Ltd 2005 3 SA 323 (SCA) para 28. For a comparative per spective see M Hogg “......
-
Cape Town City v South African National Roads Authority and Others
...referred to R v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A): dictum at 256G – H applied Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ): compared D S v Pennington and Another 1997 (4) SA 1076 (CC) (1999 (2) SACR 329; 1997 (10) BCLR 1413; [1997] ZACC 10): referred to S v Theb......
-
eBotswana (Pty) Ltd v Sentech (Pty) Ltd and Others
...(2005 (4) BCLR 301; [2004] ZACC 20): dicta in paras [76] – [88] applied Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ): referred to H Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA): referred to Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock ......
-
Toegepaste Kontraktereg – Oor Arbitrasies en dies meer
...do es not publish any awar d or any part of an award wi thout the prior writ ten consent of all parties and the Arbitral Tribunal.”53 2009 5 SA 531 (GSJ).406 STELL LR 2016 2© Juta and Company (Pty) “There is no legislative basis for the privacy and condentiality of arbitration proceedings ......
-
Cape Town City v South African National Roads Authority and Others
...referred to R v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A): dictum at 256G – H applied Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ): compared D S v Pennington and Another 1997 (4) SA 1076 (CC) (1999 (2) SACR 329; 1997 (10) BCLR 1413; [1997] ZACC 10): referred to S v Theb......
-
eBotswana (Pty) Ltd v Sentech (Pty) Ltd and Others
...(2005 (4) BCLR 301; [2004] ZACC 20): dicta in paras [76] – [88] applied Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ): referred to H Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA): referred to Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock ......
-
South African National Roads Agency Limited v City of Cape Town and Others
...Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Limited In re: Gallo Africa Limited v Replication Technology Group and Others 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ). That case involved an application by a respondent in a pending contempt of court application to strike out material in the supporting p......
-
MV Alina II Transnet Ltd v MV Alina II
...Laden on Board the MV Nagos, and Another 1996 (2) SA 261 (D): referred to Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Ltd 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ): D dictum in para [5] Santam Ltd and Others v Segal 2010 (2) SA 160 (N): dictum at 162E – F applied STT Sales (Pty) Ltd v Fourie and Oth......
-
Discovery Who Calls The Shots
...4 Replication Technology Group and Others v Gallo Africa Limited. In re: Gallo Africa Limited v Replication Technology Group and Others 2009 (5) SA 531 (GSJ) 11 February 2016 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should b......
-
Giving Practical Effect to Good Faith in the Law of Contract
...26; furt her see Bradfield Christie’s Law of Contrac t in South Africa 428 .91 See Replicatio n Technology Group v Gallo Af rica Ltd 2009 5 SA 531 (GSJ) para 16 n 49; South Afr ican Forestry Co Lt d v York Timber s Ltd 2005 3 SA 323 (SCA) para 28. For a comparative per spective see M Hogg “......
-
Toegepaste Kontraktereg – Oor Arbitrasies en dies meer
...do es not publish any awar d or any part of an award wi thout the prior writ ten consent of all parties and the Arbitral Tribunal.”53 2009 5 SA 531 (GSJ).406 STELL LR 2016 2© Juta and Company (Pty) “There is no legislative basis for the privacy and condentiality of arbitration proceedings ......