South Africa: Disclosure & Electronic Discovery & Privilege

The Gauteng High Court's judgment in TMM Holdings v Skycastle Securities examines when litigation privilege protects documents from disclosure, specifically addressing whether insurance claim forms and investigative reports created for multiple purposes qualify for privilege. The court applied the dominant purpose test to determine if documents prepared simultaneously for insurance claims, internal investigations, and potential litigation must be disclosed in discovery proceedings.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) in the case of Ibex RSA Holdco Ltd and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (“Ibex”)...

In a recent judgment delivered by the Gauteng Division of the High Court, the Plaintiff, a major financial institution, sought a monetary judgment against the Defendants...

Legal professional privilege applies to communications between a client and legal advisor, where the legal advisor is acting in a professional capacity and is consulted in confidence for the purpose of the client obtaining legal advice.

Tuchten J of the North Gauteng High Court handed down an important judgment in relation to information and documentation obtained by SARS.

The draconian powers given to the South African Revenue Service by the Tax Administration Act of 2011 have been discussed and criticised in great detail by various commentators.