MHLANTLA J lawful digital migration process.26 It further held that the state only has a duty to consult where it would be irrational to take the decision without consultation with industry experts.27 The High Court thus dismissed the application. [21] The final aspect considered by the High Court was an application in terms of rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court for the admission of a statement by the SABC. This application was brought on the eve of the hand down of the judgment. The statement sought to be admitted had been issued on 25 March 2022, after the hearing in the High Court, in which the SABC expressed some concerns about the analogue switch-off date and the process leading up to the finalisation of the digital migration.28 The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that it would be prejudicial to admit the statement as the respondents would not be afforded an opportunity to respond to the statement. It said, “in light of the [High] Court’s order, this further evidence is not required”.29 [22] Notwithstanding the dismissal of the application, the High Court extended the date for analogue switch-off to 30 June 2022. It said that this was to ensure that the households which have registered for STBs would access them before the analogue switch-off date. The Court did not explain how the extension period was determined. On costs, the High Court ordered e.tv to pay 50% of the first respondent’s costs and pay the full costs of the second, third and sixth respondents. The Court held that the Biowatch30 principle applied in respect of MMA and SOS, and thus made no order as to costs. 26 Id at para 61. 27 Id at para 62. 28 On 5 April 2022, the SABC issued another statement which said that the statement of 25 March 2022 was not intended to be used by the applicants in the ongoing litigation. It further said that the statement did not exhaust agreed procedures between the SABC and the Minister, and as such the SABC apologised to the Minister for the oversight. 29 High Court judgment above n 2 at para 70. 30 Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC); 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC). 12