193266/2025/ bdp JUDGMENT
2025- 10- 20
2
have also been subpoenaed.
The application has been brought without providing
any of the respondents notice. In her founding affidavit Ms.
Theys appears to say that the reason she did not provide
notice is that one of the respondent's attorney s made
certain utterances over the phone to the effect that she, Ms.
Theys, did not want to “end up like” an attorney who was
apparently recently killed in connection with one of his
cases. Ms. Theys interpreted this utterance as a threat , and
in her affidavit she says that this threat is so serious that
10
her application should be heard ex parte and in camera .
On the facts before me, I think Ms. Theys has
perhaps adopted a strained interpretation of what the
attorney said to her. But I need not explore that issue
further. At the hearing before me counsel for Ms. Theys did
not advance the case that the attorney’s alleged threat was
the basis for the approach to court ex parte. He instead
said that no notice has been given to the respondents
because of the expedited timeframes set out in the notice of
motion.
20
That excuse for failure to give notice is plainly
inadequate. The notice of motion was signed on 16 October,
last Thursday. Counsel for Ms. Theys was unable to explain
why the applicant could not have given the respondents
notice of today ’s hearing on Friday, affording them the