Related documents
- Is amended by Agricultural Product Standards Amendment Act, 1998
- Is amended by Agricultural Product Standards Amendment Act, 2023
- Is amended by General Law Third Amendment Act, 1993
Loading PDF...
This document is 7.4 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
22 August 2025 amendment not yet applied
28 September 1998 amendment not yet applied
01 September 1993 amendment not yet applied
Amended by
General Law Third Amendment Act, 1993
13 July 1990 this version
28 June 1990
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 553
Gazette
544Judgment
7|
A label that visually emphasises ‘butter’ over its class designation misleads consumers and breaches statutory labelling rules.
Agricultural Product Standards Act – labelling: regulation 26(7)(a) (size of words relative to class designation); regulation 32(3)(a)–32(4) (prohibition on marks creating misleading impressions); test for likelihood of misleading/confusing impression follows ordinary trade mark/passing-off principles; statutory contravention may give rise to unlawful competition and justify interdict; joinder of Minister not required where relief affects only parties.
|
|
Reported
Whether an assignee’s unilateral inspection-fee determination unlawfully deprives owners of property and meets PAJA fairness and rationality requirements.
* Administrative law – PAJA – procedural fairness – notice-and-comment process must disclose methodology and enable meaningful comment; inadequate publication and lack of costing rationale vitiate process.
* Constitutional law – Property (s 25) – charging regulated inspection fees for services is not per se a deprivation of property; unilateral power to set fees not automatically unconstitutional.
* Constitutional law – Rule of law and s 195 – values do not of themselves create enforceable rights to strike down legislation.
* Judicial review – Rationality – fees must be rationally related to legitimate purpose (cost recovery); unexplained cents-per-kilogram structure irrational.
|
|
Interim interdict restraining seizure of meat analogue products pending review of APS Act authority and directives.
Administrative law – reviewability of directives and communiques; statutory interpretation of Agricultural Product Standards Act (APS Act) – scope of assignee’s powers over meat analogue products; interim interdict – prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; seizures under APS Act – warrant and s 7(5) compliance; procedural relief – condonation and partial striking out of affidavit material.
|
|
Reported
Whether a statutory regulator exceeded its statutory powers and failed to afford procedural fairness in prescribing fees.
Administrative law – statutory regulator’s fee-prescribing powers; administrative action under PAJA; time-bar under s 7 PAJA; ultra vires and irrationality of percentage-based Category C assurance fees (s 8(2)(b) read with s 47(2)); lawfulness of tax-practitioner recognition fees (s 8(2)(c)); procedural fairness and PAJA notice-and-comment obligations; gazetting requirement and expiry of annual fees.
|
|
An appellate court will uphold a customs classification as Gouda where expert evidence leaves doubt about the correctness of the Commissioner’s determination.
* Customs law – tariff classification – interpretation of technical product names – use of expert evidence to determine whether imported cheese is "Gouda".
* Customs law – classification at time of import – effect of incomplete maturation on tariff classification.
* Product characteristics – absence of eyes and fat-in-dry-matter ranges – relevance to distinguishing Gouda from Edam.
* Administrative law – appeal under s 47(9)(e) – standard of review: appellate court will uphold determination if left in doubt.
|
|
Trade‑name designation valid; assignee lawfully exercised statutory inspection and fee‑setting powers.
Administrative law; Agricultural Product Standards Act s 2(3) designation by trade name; interpretation of designation in context; assignee powers include inspections, sampling, entry, seizure and fee‑setting (ss 3A, 3(1A)(b)(ii), 7, 8); determination of fees is administrative action under PAJA; consultative process met procedural fairness; late introduction of new grounds on appeal refused.
|
|
Assignee’s weight‑based, category‑split inspection fees were ultra vires, procedurally unfair and irrational; fee determination set aside.
Administrative law — Assignee fee determinations under Agricultural Products Standards Act — Ultra vires where fees not tied to actions actually performed (s 3A) — PAJA/regulatory consultation — Requirement to provide sufficient information for meaningful comment (Reg 18(3)) — Rationality review — Weight-based and category-based fees arbitrary and not rationally connected to statutory purpose — Costs including two counsel.
|
Act
1|
Business, Trade and Industry
|
By-law
1|
Agriculture and Land
·
Business, Trade and Industry
|
Subsidiary legislation
|
Title
|
|
|---|---|
| Government Notice 6662 of 2025 | |
|
Replaced
|
Government Notice 6624 of 2025 |
| Government Notice R6436 of 2025 |