| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T16:58:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T16:58:07Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2004-10-19 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1998] ZACC 19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1999 (2) SA 116 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1999 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2057 | |
| dc.title | Beinash and Another v Ernst & Young and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT12/98 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT12/98 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 8 September 1998 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Mokgoro J | |
| dc.date.judgment | 2 December 1998 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2057/Full%20judgment%20%28200%20Kb%29-2081.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | The right of access to courts. Application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court, challenging the constitutionality of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956 on the basis that it is inconsistent with section 34 of the final Constitution. Application refused in unanimous judgment by Mokgoro J. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Following an unsuccessful application to the Supreme Court of Appeal (Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA)) for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court reported at 1999 (1) SA 1114 (W), the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. Application refused. |