Show simple item record

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.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account