Ingledew v Financial Services Board

The Financial Services Board (FSB) instituted civil action against Norman Murray Ingledew and another, alleging contraventions of the Insider Trading Act 135 of 1998 arising from alleged use of inside information while acting as directors of Skills Accel (Pty) Ltd. Before pleading, Ingledew invoked Uniform Rule 35(14) to compel the FSB to produce documents, witness statements, and interrogation transcripts obtained during the FSB’s investigation. When the FSB refused, Ingledew applied to the Pretoria High Court to compel production, relying on Rule 35(14) and, alternatively, on constitutional rights of access to information and a fair trial under sections 32, 34 and 35 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the information was not required for purposes of pleading and that discovery during litigation is regulated by the rules of court. Ingledew then applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal was refused. Certain condonation applications were granted with costs against the applicant; others were refused, with each party ordered to pay its own costs in relation to those applications.

The case is significant for clarifying the relationship between constitutional rights of access to information and procedural discovery rules in civil litigation against the State. It underscores that, once litigation has commenced, access to information is generally governed by the rules of court, and constitutional rights cannot be invoked to circumvent those rules without challenging their constitutionality. The judgment also illustrates the Constitutional Court’s approach to the ‘interests of justice’ requirement in interlocutory appeals.