2
KAREL BREDENKAMP Second Respondent
In the matter between:
ANDELINE WILLIAMS First Applicant
and
THE LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL, GAUTENG First Respondent
PRABASHNI SUBRAYAN NAIDOO Second Respondent
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and time for
hand down is deemed to be 7 September 2025.
DE OLIVEIRA, AJ
[1] Ms Williams-Pretorius seeks leave to appeal in terms of section 17(1)(a) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the Act”) in regard to all three applications that
this court heard on 11 March 2025. All three applications for leave to appeal are
opposed by the Legal Practice Council (“LPC”).
[2] Section 17(1)(a) of the Act provides as follows:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion
that —
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration…”
3
[3] The grounds advanced by Ms Williams-Pretorius in her lengthy application for
leave to appeal, appear to me to rehash the issues and arguments raised in the
initial hearing. I am not totally persuaded that an appeal would have a reasonable
prospect of success as contemplated in section 17(1)(a) of the Act.
[4] If the court is not persuaded of the prospects of success, however, it must still
enquire as to whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. 1
Three examples of compelling reasons, though there is no exhaustive list, are
that the decision sought to be appealed involves an important question of law, 2
the existence of differing interpretations of another judgment, as concretised in
two judgments, 3 and the need for legal certainty where there are conflicting
judgments.4
[5] As I mentioned in the main judgment, two further matters involving Ms Williams-
Pretorius and the LPC, the facts of which appear to significantly overlap with the
facts of the three matters that I heard, were dealt with by JM Berger AJ in
Williams-Pretorius v Legal Practice Council Gauteng Provincial Office and
Another.5 JM Berger AJ and I arrived at different conclusions based on what
appear to be very similar facts. In my view this amounts to conflicting judgments
on the matter under consideration as contemplated in section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the
Act.
1 See for example Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) at para [2].
2 Ibid.
3 See for example Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (Leave
to Appeal) (44983/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 315 (13 May 2022) at para [3].
4 See for example Nova Property Group Holdings Ltd v Cobbett 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA) at 324D.
5 2025 JDR 1042 (GJ).
4
[6] Furthermore, whilst the application of the principles set out in Groundup6 to the
facts before us do not necessarily mean that JM Berger AJ and I adopted different
interpretations of such principles, in my view our application of such principles to
the facts are sufficiently divergent as to merit clarity, in particular taking into
account that the issue at hand is the threshold for review of the decision of an
investigating committee of the LPC.
[7] I am mindful of the fact that section 17(6)(a) of the Act provides that leave to
appeal must be granted to a full court unless the court considers that the decision
to be appealed involves a question of law of importance, whether because of its
general application or otherwise, or in respect of which a decision of the Supreme
Court of Appeal is required to resolve differences of opinion, but in my view the
aforementioned divergence is not to such an extent as to trigger section 17(6)(a).
I accordingly intend to grant leave to appeal to a full court of this Division.
[8] In view of the substantial overlap between the matters and the manner in which I
deal with them on a quasi-consolidated basis (as JM Berger AJ also did), the
appeals should be dealt with by a full court on a similar basis subject to the
approval of the Deputy Judge President and the Registrar.
Order
[9] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
6 Groundup News NPC and Others v South African Legal Practice Council and Others 2023 (4) SA 617
(GJ).
1