dc.contributor.author | van Eetveldt, Henri-Willem | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-05-29T09:52:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-05-29T09:52:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Van Eetveldt, H. 2019. Standing on Unsteady Ground: AREVA NP Incorporated in France v Eskom SOC LTD. Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad = Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2019(22):1-27. [http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a3285] | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1727-3781 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/32480 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a3285 | |
dc.description.abstract | Areva NP Incorporated in France v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd 2017 6 BCLR 675 (CC) was a dispute over a multi-billion-rand tender. Although the majority of the Constitutional Court recognised the public importance of the case, it adjudicated the dispute entirely on a preliminary point. It found that the applicant did not have legal standing to seek the judicial review of the award of the tender.
This case note has three aims. First, I will argue that the Constitutional Court's majority judgment in Areva was generally unpersuasive. Second, I will attempt to show that Areva exposes an unresolved legal question: when should a court consider the merits of a case made by a litigant with questionable standing? Third, I will propose a method for resolving this question by way of substantive judicial reasoning in any given case. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | PER/PELJ | en_US |
dc.subject | Locus standi | en_US |
dc.subject | legal standing | en_US |
dc.subject | public-procurement | en_US |
dc.subject | tender-dispute | en_US |
dc.subject | substantive reasoning | en_US |
dc.subject | transformative adjudication | en_US |
dc.title | Standing on unsteady ground: AREVA NP incorporated in France v Eskom SOC LTD | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |