Let’s explore a POPIA case where the court’s decision has significant implications for the admissibility of evidence under POPIA: De Jager v Netcare Limited.
In the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, a legal battle was underway between Netcare Limited and Nicolaas J de Jager. The case involved issues of privacy, evidence admissibility, and legal principles.
Who should care about this case?
- Litigators in South Africa: This case provides important guidance on procedural requirements in court cases, particularly when dealing with constitutional issues and privacy rights.
- Anyone concerned with privacy rights: The case highlights the balance between protecting personal information and pursuing legitimate interests, especially in the context of legal proceedings.
- Organisations handling personal information: The judgment clarifies the scope of POPIA and its application to various situations, including the processing of special personal information
What were the facts?
- The plaintiff, Nicolaas J de Jager, sued Netcare Limited.
- The defendant, Netcare Limited, sought to introduce evidence that included photos and videos of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff objected to this evidence, claiming it was obtained unlawfully and violated his privacy rights.
- The plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court, which requires a party raising a constitutional issue to give notice to interested parties.
- The plaintiff also failed to plead POPIA, the Protection of Personal Information Act, in his arguments.
The legal question
The main legal question was whether the defendant’s evidence, which included photos and videos of the plaintiff, was admissible despite the plaintiff’s claims of privacy violation, especially considering the plaintiff’s failure to plead POPIA and comply with Rule 16A.
Plaintiff’s claims
The plaintiff, Nicolaas J de Jager, had accused Netcare Limited of violating his privacy.
Defendant’s response
The defendant, Netcare Limited, had sought to introduce evidence that could potentially damage the plaintiff’s case.
Role of amici curiae
The court had appointed two amici curiae, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Professor SSK Mtuze, to assist with the case. They are legal experts not directly involved in the case but who can offer their expertise to the court.
Amici curiae submissions
The amici curiae had made several submissions to the court, including that the plaintiff had:
- Not complied with Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court: In South African court cases, parties must adhere to specific rules and procedures. Rule 16A, in particular, requires a party raising a constitutional issue to prepare a notice containing a clear and succinct description of the constitutional issue raised. After the Registrar stamps the notice, they must place the notice on a dedicated notice-board in the relevant High Court. One of the main purposes of the Rule 16A Notice is to inform those who may be interested in the constitutional challenge.
- Not pleaded POPIA: The plaintiff neglected to plead POPIA in its court documents. This omission weakened the plaintiff’s argument regarding privacy concerns.
Turning point: Plaintiff’s failure to plead POPIA
The plaintiff’s failure to plead POPIA became a crucial turning point in the case. The defendant’s counsel argued that this failure meant that the court should dismiss the plaintiff’s objection to the defendant’s evidence.
The defendant’s evidence was a report prepared by Mr Dion Pienaar, which included photos and videos of the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that this evidence was inadmissible because it was obtained unlawfully and violated his privacy rights.
Court’s decision
The court agreed with the defendant’s counsel and dismissed the plaintiff’s objection. The court found that the evidence was admissible under POPIA because the defendant was pursuing a legitimate interest to discover the truth about the health of the plaintiff.
Order
The case in De Jager v Netcare Limited concluded with a victory for the defendant, Netcare Limited.
What should ITLawCo clients do?
- Ensure compliance with Rule 16A: When raising constitutional issues in court, clients should be diligent in complying with Rule 16A to avoid jeopardising their case.
- Explicitly plead POPIA: If privacy rights are a concern, clients should specifically mention and rely on POPIA in their pleadings to ensure their privacy arguments are considered.
- Understand the scope of POPIA: Clients should be aware of the scope of POPIA and its implications for the processing of personal information, especially when dealing with sensitive information like health data.
- Balance legitimate interests with privacy: Clients should strive to balance their legitimate interests with the privacy rights of individuals, ensuring that any processing of personal information is lawful and reasonable.
