Abstract
This article compares the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (PDA) in South Africa and New Zealand. The comparison is framed by the question whether the PDA binds members of Parliament (MPs) or not. Regarding South Africa, the article analyses the provisions of the PDA and its curial interpretation in the Charlton litigation. Technically, MPs are bound by the PDA. This article nonetheless defends the Labour Appeal Court's merits judgment, which held that MPs are not bound. Regarding New Zealand, the article analyses the provisions of the PDA and suggests the probable outcome in court if similar litigation were ever to occur in New Zealand.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
