Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb

Last updated
Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb
Court Natal Provincial Division
Full case nameMinister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another
Decided15 December 1995 (1995-12-15)
Court membership
Judge sittingHurt J
Case opinions
Decision byHurt J

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another [1] [2] is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC (with him M G Roberts); DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

Contents

The matter dealt with the question of atmospheric pollution: in particular, the carrying on of a "scheduled process" within a controlled area in contravention of section 9(1) of Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act. [3] The court found that the remedy of interdict was available to enforce the provisions of this Act, so that the Minister of Health and Welfare was not limited to the remedy of criminal prosecution.

The Minister of Health and Welfare was responsible for the proper administration and enforcement of the Act. The purpose of provisions of sections 9 to 13 was to "control" the installation and use of "scheduled processes" throughout South Africa. The court found that the Minister needed the remedy of interdict for that purpose, and accordingly had locus standi to apply for such an interdict. Because none of the respondent's neighbours were applicants in such proceedings, Minister also had locus standi to apply for an interdict restraining such conduct of the respondent which infringed the right to "an environment which is not detrimental to their health and well-being," as enshrined in section 29 of the interim Constitution, then in effect. The generation of smoke, in contravention of s 9(1) of Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act 45 of 1965, was just such an infringement.

Judgment

The Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, the court found, does authorise the Minister of Health and Welfare to apply for an interdict to enforce the provisions of section 9(1) thereof, and to restrain conduct which constitutes the carrying on of a "scheduled process" within a controlled area without a current registration certificate, in contravention of section 9(1). The Minister is not limited, therefore, to the specific criminal penalties provided for contraventions of section 9. The Act provides no specific "remedies" which the Minister or any other interested party can invoke to stop a person from contravening it. In such circumstances the principle does not arise that the Act is exclusive as to what may be done to enforce its provisions. [4] The dictum in Johannesburg City Council v Knoetze and Sons [5] was thus approved and applied.

The Minister of Health and Welfare is responsible for the proper administration and enforcement of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act. The whole purpose of the legislation, and particularly of the provisions of sections 9-13 of the Act, is to "control" the installation and use of scheduled processes throughout the Republic, seeing that the whole of the Republic has been designated as a "controlled area." It cannot, in these circumstances, be contended that the Minister does not need the remedy of injunction to enable her to control these processes effectively and thereby discharge her duties under the Act. Accordingly, the court found, the Minister has locus standi to apply for an interdict to restrain conduct which constitutes a contravention of section 9(1) of the Act. [6]

Conduct which is unlawful in the light of section 9 of the Act, in casu the generation of smoke producing noxious or offensive gases at the respondents' sawmill by means of a scheduled process, was found also to be an infringement of the rights of the respondents' neighbours to "an environment which is not detrimental to their health and well-being," enshrined for them in section 29 of the interim Constitution. Insofar as none of those neighbours were applicants for an interdict restraining such infringement, the Minister of Health and Welfare could rely on the provisions of section 7(4)(b)(iv) of the Constitution for locus standi to apply to Court for an interdict to restrain conduct which infringes the rights under section 29 of the neighbours of such respondent. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Enforcement Directive

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a European Union directive in the field of intellectual property law, made under the Single Market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The directive covers civil remedies only—not criminal ones.

Lawburrows Type of protective order (Scots law)

Lawburrows is a little-known civil action in Scots law initiated by one person afraid of another's possible violence.

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 United Kingdom legislation

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2011 defines the fundamental structure and authority for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the United Kingdom.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 United Kingdom legislation

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2008 defines, within England and Wales and Scotland, the fundamental structure and authority for waste management and control of emissions into the environment.

Remedies in Singapore administrative law Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

South African property law

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

<i>Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court (CC) on 19 February 2008, with judgment handed down on 2 October. The judges were Langa CJ, O'Regan ADCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ. Counsel for the applicant was G. Budlender. There was no appearance for the first respondent, but Wim Trengrove SC appeared for the second and for the third respondent. The applicant's attorneys were Kruger & Co.; the State Attorney represented the second respondent, while the third respondent's attorneys were Brugmans Inc.

South African environmental law The legal rules in South Africa relating to management of the environment

South African environmental law describes the legal rules in South Africa relating to the social, economic, philosophical and jurisprudential issues raised by attempts to protect and conserve the environment in South Africa. South African environmental law encompasses natural resource conservation and utilization, as well as land-use planning and development. Issues of enforcement are also considered, together with the international dimension, which has shaped much of the direction of environmental law in South Africa. The role of the country's Constitution, crucial to any understanding of the application of environmental law, also is examined. The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) provides the underlying framework for environmental law.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law in that country which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

In Johannesburg City Council v Knoetze and Sons, an important case in South African law, Trollip J dealt

  1. with the question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interdict to restrain the performance of conduct which, of itself, constitutes a statutory offence, and
  2. with the question of who has locus standi to move the court for an interdict where the court has jurisdiction to grant one.

Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent.

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO; Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO 2005 (2) SA 530 (C) is an important case in South African administrative law. However, note that this case went on appeal, first to the Supreme Court of Appeal and thereafter to the Constitutional Court, where the various judgments of Chaskalson, Ngcobo, Sachs, Moseneke and others had far-reaching effects on administrative law in South Africa. This article discusses the first hearing of this matter in the Cape Provincial Division. The final judgment is listed on SAFLII as Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] ZACC 14.

Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.

Uthingo Management (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry is an important case in South African administrative law, in which the applicant sought an order interdicting the second and third respondents from operating a national lottery in South Africa, pending the final determination of the applicant's review application.

The Constitutional litigation in South Africa is an area of the law that deals with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters. It examines the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. It considers the rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.

Data Protection Act, 2012

The Data Protection Act, 2012 is legislation enacted by the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana to protect the privacy and personal data of individuals. It regulates the process personal information is acquired, kept, used or disclosed by data controllers and data processors by requiring compliance with certain data protection principles. Non compliance with provisions of the Act may attract either civil liability, or criminal sanctions, or both, depending on the nature of the infraction. The Act also establishes a Data Protection Commission, which is mandated to ensure compliance with its provisions, as well as maintain the Data Protection Register.

<i>DB v The Minister for Health</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DB v The Minister for Health[2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

References

Books

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 1996 (3) SA 155 (N).
  2. ↑ Case No. 1773/94.
  3. ↑ Act 45 of 1965.
  4. ↑ 161D-F, 159H-I.
  5. ↑ 1969 (2) SA 148 (W) 154F-155B.
  6. ↑ 161I-162A.
  7. ↑ 164E-G.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.