All South African Law Reports
November 2013 (6) The South African Law Reports (pp 1 – 317);  3 The All South African Law Reports October no 1 (pp 1 – 116); and no 2 (pp 117 – 252)
This column discusses judgments as and when they are published in the South African Law Reports, the All South African Law Reports and the South African Criminal Law Reports. Readers should note that some reported judgments may have been overruled or overturned on appeal or have an appeal pending against them: Readers should not rely on a judgment discussed here without checking on that possibility – Editor.
ECP: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
GNP: Gauteng North High Court, Pretoria
GSJ: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
KZD: KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban
KZP: KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermartizburg
SCA: Supreme Court of Appeal
WCC: Western Cape High Court
Duty of confidentiality to client: In Wishart and Others v Blieden NO and Others 2013 (6) SA 59 (KZP) the three applicants were summoned to appear before the first respondent in July 2011 in an inquiry convened under s 417 of the now repealed Companies Act 61 of 1973. The inquiry related to a company called Avstar Aviation.
The second and third respondents are advocates practising at the Johannesburg Bar. The fourth respondent is an attorney. The applicants did not want to be examined at the inquiry by the second, third and fourth respondents and did not attend the inquiry. Their attorney of record appeared instead. He submitted that the first respondent should not allow the second to fourth respondents to represent the fifth respondent (Billiton) in the inquiry. The first respondent declined to make such a ruling. This led to the present application in terms of which the applicants attempted to interdict the second, third and fourth respondents from examining the applicants.