“…data messages or electronic signatures are now recognised in our law as equivalent to a proper basis upon which a written contract can be concluded. Thus, a valid written contract can be concluded electronically.” (Extract from the South African judgment below)

ECTA (the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act) means that you can in many cases create legally binding agreements purely electronically – via email, WhatsApp, social media and the like.

There is of course both risk and opportunity here. On the one hand, the old hassles of printing everything out and signing reams and reams of paperwork have become unnecessary, even undesirable, for many transactions (but not all – take advice in doubt). Remember to keep proof of everything.

But be careful what you e-agree to!

On the other hand, beware the risks! We tend to focus more on what we’re agreeing to when it involves reading and signing printed documents, and when everything is electronic it’s a lot easier to gloss over details, and to underestimate the importance of subject matter. Particularly, perhaps, in a social media environment, where things often evolve at pace and with an air of informality.

Let’s start our discussion off with a recent High Court confirmation of the binding nature of electronic signatures.

An e-signature binds a debtor to a R1.5m deal

• A bank sued a debtor who, it said, had electronically signed a credit agreement to buy a R1.5m BMW X5 motor vehicle and then defaulted on instalment payments.
• Sued for damages and for return of the vehicle, the debtor countered by denying that he had entered into a valid electronic contract. He said his brother-in-law/employer had purchased the car in his name and had signed the agreement electronically.
• The bank, however, produced evidence (including recorded telephone conversations between the debtor and its call centre) to support its claim that the electronic signature was indeed the debtor’s.
• Commenting that “…data messages or electronic signatures are now recognised in our law as equivalent to a proper basis upon which a written contract can be concluded. Thus, a valid written contract can be concluded electronically”, the Court held that the debtor had indeed concluded the contract, and that the bank was entitled to cancel it, demand return of the car, and claim damages.

Can a “Thumbs-Up” emoji bind you to a contract?

A Canadian Court recently made international news after holding that a thumbs-up emoji constituted approval of a contract (a sale of flax), thus creating a valid contract.

The buyer in that matter had texted to the (proposed) seller an image of a purchase contract, along with the message: “Please confirm flax contract”, and the seller had responded with a thumbs-up emoji. When sued for failing to deliver per the contract, the seller claimed never to have accepted the contract – all the emoji meant, he said, was that he would think about it. However, on the particular facts of this matter, the Court concluded that the emoji had indeed signified the seller’s acceptance of the contract. The seller must now pay the buyer Can$82,200.21 (almost R1.2m at date of writing) in damages for breach of contract.

But would the result have been the same in a South African court? It seems logical that it would, provided of course that in the particular context of the matter the emoji clearly meant “I accept” and not perhaps “got it, will come back to you with an answer” or something similar.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“So often, a party in a divorce is so aggrieved and upset by their spouse’s behaviour during the marriage, and rightfully so, that they cannot fathom having to give up an asset or let their spouse benefit in any way, upon divorce. We have had numerous spouses wanting us to apply forfeiture of the benefits of the marriage based on the other spouse’s bad behaviour during the marriage.” (Extract from one of the High Court judgments below)

Divorce all too often involves high levels of stress, antagonism, dispute and desire for revenge. So, when it comes to splitting up the marital assets, the thoughts of one (or both) of them may well turn to something like “It’s their fault, I want more than just my share, in fact I want everything”.

Which is where the concept of “forfeiture of benefits” (sometimes referred to as “forfeiture of assets”) comes in. It’s an old concept in our law and is increasingly being applied for in our courts, as evidenced in several recent cases which have received wide media coverage. But what exactly does a forfeiture order entail?

What is a forfeiture of benefits order?

The court in granting a divorce has a discretion, in appropriate cases, to order that one party forfeits either all the assets of the marriage, or a specific asset or assets. This overrides both the effect of the “marital regime” of the marriage (in community of property, out of community of property with accrual, out of community of property without accrual) and anything agreed to by the parties in their ANC (ante-nuptial contract).

When will a court order forfeiture?

Forfeiture orders are the exception not the rule, and the onus is firmly on the party claiming forfeiture to establish the basis and amount of their entitlement to it.

The Divorce Act provides that, where a divorce is granted on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court may order forfeiture if it is satisfied that one party will otherwise be “unduly benefitted” in relation to the other (the party claiming forfeiture will have to establish the “nature and extent” of that undue benefit). The court will take into account –

• The duration of the marriage,
• The circumstances that caused the marital breakdown, and
• “Any substantial misconduct on the part of either of the parties”.

That gives the court a wide discretion, and every case will be different, but let’s have a look at three recent High Court decisions to illustrate some typical scenarios in which forfeiture was successfully applied for –

1. A cheating husband loses his share of accrual
   A couple were married out of community of property with accrual. On divorce, that would normally result in a balancing between the parties of the asset accrual during the marriage, but in this case, in granting the wife a divorce from her husband after 12 years, the High Court ordered that the husband “forfeits the patrimonial benefits of the accrual system in total”, including his interest in the wife’s business.

   The Court’s decision followed its findings that the husband was guilty of “shockingly egregious” misconduct during most of the marriage, including living away from home, failing to “contribute to the common home financially, emotionally, or in any other manner”, engaging in a long string of extra-marital affairs and attempting, whilst employed in his wife’s successful business, firstly to fraudulently extort money from it and secondly to hijack the business.

2. A short marriage ends, and the wife gets nothing 
   Here, the High Court ordered that a wife forfeit her share of the joint estate assets (with “in community of property” marriages a joint estate is formed, which in the normal  course would be divided 50/50 on divorce) after accepting the husband’s evidence that she had “married him to secure financial wealth for herself, advance herself in [the] political arena by using his influence and to benefit from his estate.”

   Relevant factors considered by the Court – the short duration of the marriage (14 months from marriage to separation), the 39-year age gap between them, her lack of love or respect for him and embarrassment at being seen in public with him, and her desire to live an extravagant lifestyle beyond his means.

3. A husband’s substantial misconduct costs him his share of a joint estate 
   In this matter the Court ordered the husband to forfeit his share of another “in community of property” joint estate, including an immovable property and a share in his wife’s pension interest. The husband’s conduct, held the Court, had been tantamount to “substantial misconduct”, including failure to contribute to household expenses, failure to pay his child’s maintenance until forced to do so by the Maintenance Court, extra-marital affairs and physical, financial and emotional abuse.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“He that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” (Shakespeare)

As our lives move increasingly online, more and more of us will be subjected to the distress and damage of online attacks. Whether they are aimed at hurting us personally or at harming our businesses, they can take a substantial toll both materially and psychologically.

What can you do if you (or your business) falls victim? The good news is that in appropriate cases our courts will come to your rescue robustly and with speed, as evidenced by a recent High Court decision.

Your legal protections

Before we discuss the facts and outcome of that case, let’s make a general note that as a victim of any defamation you have a choice of legal weapons available to you. A claim for damages can be highly effective but it is, as the Court here put it, a backward-looking remedy essentially suitable for redressing past defamation.

Where on the other hand you are being subjected to, or fear being subjected to, ongoing defamatory attacks, ask your lawyer about applying urgently for an interdict. As in the case we discuss below, it can provide powerful, quick and effective protection.

You could also try laying a criminal charge of crimen injuria (criminal impairment of another’s dignity) but perhaps don’t hold your breath on that one.

A property developer’s reputation vindicated, and an extortion attempt punished

• A company undertaking a large property development employed a roofing contractor which, after a fall out, started publishing defamatory statements about the developer on a local WhatsApp group and Facebook.
• Amongst other things the posts accused the developer of acting unlawfully for financial gain, creating a potentially life-threatening situation, dishonesty, not carrying out necessary remedial actions, defrauding the Municipality, exploiting elderly clients, selling uninspected and potentially dangerous homes, not following proper safety standards – the list goes on.
• The Court found no truth at all in any of these allegations and rejected for lack of proof the roofing contractor’s defence of “truth and the public benefit”.
• Particularly damningly perhaps, it held that the contractor had tried to extort payment of its outstanding invoices in return for its silence.
• The Court accordingly interdicted the contractor from continuing with the defamatory posts (online or otherwise), directed it to publish a copy of the court order on the online channels in question, and ordered it to pay legal costs on the punitive attorney and client scale.

The end result, which is a vindication of the developer’s position and an expensive lesson in the law for the roofing contractor, will give much heart to other victims of this sort of harassment.

Bottom line for victims – don’t take social media defamation lying down!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“No alienation of land … shall … be of any force or effect unless it is contained in a deed of alienation signed by the parties thereto or by their agents acting on their written authority.” (Alienation of Land Act)

Ensure that all the important terms of your sale agreement are recorded in writing and signed.

Leave out anything “material” and, as we shall see from the Supreme Court of Appeal case discussed below, your entire sale could well collapse. At the very least, you face significant legal consequences, delay and cost.

The omitted term that sank a R4.5m sale (after 7 years’ delay)

• In 2016, liquidators of a property-owning company sold several pieces of land (including a “private ring road” erf) to a buyer for R4.5m plus vat.
• A saga of delay and confusion followed, including changes to the original sale agreement such as an addendum changing the date of transfer, and another correcting a mistake in the ring road’s erf number.
• Eventually it became clear that a subdivision of the ring road erf would be necessary to save the sale, and the parties started negotiating in an attempt to do so.
• Whilst it was not clear to the Court whether or not the buyer and seller did actually reach any agreement on the matter, the critical issue was that at best there was only an informal arrangement or an oral agreement – “no formal written agreement or addendum was ever concluded and signed by or on behalf of the parties”. Nor was it clear that they were agreed on what exactly was being sold, the buyer claiming to have had no intention of buying the whole ring road erf as set out in the original agreement.
• That rendered the whole sale agreement null and void.

The formalities required for validity

• Property sale agreements must be in writing and signed. Whilst generally our laws hold us to even our verbal agreements, there are exceptions where only written agreements are binding. A vitally important one is the sale of land. The Alienation of Land Act requires that the whole contract of sale be reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of both buyer and seller.
• That written sale agreement must include all “material terms”, incorporating both –
  • “Essential” terms, which must set out the identity of the parties to the contract, the identity of the land sold, and the amount of the sale price; and
  • Any other term that is “material … determined with reference to its effect on the rights and obligations of the parties.” That’s an imprecise and wide definition so each case will be decided on its own facts, but for example a subdivision would clearly fall into that net.

    In this case, the omission of a subdivision term had created uncertainty about the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the subdivision process, including responsibility for costs and potential consequences if approval was not granted. Their failure to record in writing their agreement on these issues (if indeed they ever reached one) rendered the whole sale invalid.

Note that your written agreement must be clear in itself, sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to avoid any need for oral evidence on any of those critical issues.

Takeaways

1. Even when our law doesn’t require your agreement to be written and signed to be valid, put it in writing! Always insist on a written agreement that covers all the material terms of your sale. That’s make or break with property sales, but in all cases verbal agreements are a recipe for uncertainty and dispute.
2. Seek legal advice before you sign anything: Engaging an experienced property lawyer upfront will ensure that your interests are protected throughout the process.
3. Clarify anything important like subdivision: If your transaction involves subdivision (or indeed any other important aspects), make sure that all obligations, cost liabilities, and potential outcomes are clearly stipulated in the written agreement. It’s the only way to ensure the validity of your sale, avoid ambiguity, and reduce the risks of any unforeseen circumstances and dispute.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The requirement that credit providers must be registered allows for their control and regulation, especially in relation to their financial probity and integrity, thereby avoiding the unscrupulous exploitation of credit consumers by so-called fly-by-night operators and loan sharks.” (Extract from judgment below)

A recent High Court case highlights once again the dangers of lending money, or granting credit, in contravention of our credit laws. By understanding the pitfalls associated with being an unregistered credit provider and of not complying with the National Credit Act (NCA), you can protect yourself from the potential legal and financial risks.

Close friends fall out, and the lender loses R1.5m

• The parties involved in this unhappy saga were previously close friends. An admitted but non-practicing advocate, who acted as a trustee of his friend’s personal trust, asked the friend (who had just sold his house) for a loan. The friend obliged with loans totalling R2.5m.
• To simplify a long and complicated factual history, disputes arose and a series of acknowledgments of debt (AODs) were signed to document the loan, the last AOD recording a settlement agreement/compromise.
• Over time, the borrower had made payments totaling just over R3m to the lender, the dispute went to arbitration, an arbitration award was made, and ultimately the lender sued his ex-friend in the High Court for a balance of R1,535,000.
• The Court, holding that the loan agreement and AODs were unlawful and invalid, dismissed the lender’s claim – which leaves him R1.5m out of pocket, plus costs and lost interest. That’s a very hard lesson that all would-be lenders should take careful note of.

How do you lose everything by not complying with the NCA?

In protecting consumers from incurring debt beyond their means, our National Credit Act (NCA) requires that, with only a few exceptions, “credit providers” (which would include anyone lending money or giving credit to a friend) must –

1. Register in terms of the NCA; and
2. Conduct a “credit assessment” to confirm that the borrower is in a financial position to enter into the loan and repay it.

Registration is unnecessary in some circumstances – for example loans between family members who are dependent on each other, whilst only “arm’s length” transactions will as a general rule fall under the NCA. There are other cases in which the NCA won’t apply or will only partially apply, but with all the grey areas involved, get specific legal advice before lending to anyone – friend or not.

Your risk is that any loan made by an unregistered credit provider becomes uncollectable. That means you could lose everything. If you find yourself in that position, there is still a ray of hope for you in that a court normally still has a discretion to help you on the basis of fairness, by making a “just and equitable” order of any sort. But don’t rely on that happening – you will have to justify making the non-compliant loan and hope for the best when it comes to the court weighing up the balance of fairness between the two of you. Rather be safe and check whether you need to comply with the NCA or not before you make the loan.

Besides, sometimes the court has no discretion at all to come to your rescue, which is exactly what happened in this case because the claim here was based not on the original credit agreement but on a settlement agreement. So the Court couldn’t have helped the lender even if it had wanted to.

There are no longer any thresholds – all loans are at risk

Finally, note that no matter what you may read in the media to the contrary, there is no longer any R500,000 debt threshold – any loan of any amount falls into the net since 2016. And since 2014 even one-off loans are at risk (before that, the NCA applied only to providers with one hundred or more credit agreements).

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“…in general, ownership of an animal should carry with it strict liability for any harm done by the animal.” (Extract from judgment below)

Owning a pet comes with both joys and responsibilities, and a recent High Court award of almost R100,000 in damages to the victim of a dog attack is yet another reminder of the potential dangers of animal ownership and the legal responsibilities that come with it.

A social invite goes horribly wrong

• 17 years old at the time, a young woman was invited to a social gathering at a private house. As the gate was opened to let her in, two dogs came running out and the one (a large Siberian Husky) ran towards her and without warning launched itself towards her throat. She raised her arms to ward off the attack which resulted in both her forearms being bitten.
• Rushed to hospital, she was operated on by a plastic surgeon and has been left (nine years on) with scarring, physical disability and pain requiring physiotherapy, as well as counselling for psychological trauma in the form of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
• The dog’s owner suggested in court papers that when the dog jumped up to greet the victim, she had provoked it and acted negligently by retaliating, hitting it and pulling its hair. She was, he said, injured when the dog fended off her “unwarranted attack”. However, as the owner led no evidence to support this (the onus being on him to do so) the Court accepted that there was no provocation or negligence from the victim’s side.
• On the basis of our law’s general legal principle that “…in general, ownership of an animal should carry with it strict liability for any harm done by the animal”, the Court ordered the dog’s owner to pay the victim a total of just under R100,000 in damages.

The danger for pet owners – liability without fault

To understand that outcome, we need to go back to an old Roman law remedy, the pauperian action (“actio de pauperie”).

Under that action, which is still very much part of our modern law, the victim does not need to prove that the animal’s owner was negligent in any way. If your dog (or any other domesticated animal) causes someone else harm you are held liable on a “no fault” or “strict liability” basis.

There are a few limited exceptions to this rule, so if for example the dog’s owner in this case had been able to show that the victim had provoked the attack, she would no longer have been able to rely on the “no fault” concept. She would then have had to prove negligence and fault on the dog owner’s part – a much harder task.

But the general risk for animal owners remains this – you can be held liable for damage caused by your animals without the slightest fault on your part.

Dog Owners – how to manage the risks

So let’s end off with a few practical tips on how to protect your pet, ensure the safety of others, and reduce your risk of legal liability –

1. Understand the risk: You could be held legally responsible for any harm caused by your pet, including injuries to people and other animals, property damage, and emotional distress suffered by the victims.
2. Check your insurance cover: Make sure you have in place Public Liability insurance that will cover you for any claim of this nature.
3. Socialise and train your dog: Proper socialisation and training are vital to prevent aggressive behavior in dogs. Ensure that your dog interacts well with people and other animals.
4. Supervision and restraint: Keep your dogs supervised and under control at all times. Follow leash laws in public spaces or whenever there is any risk of harm.
5. Watch for the warning signs: Be aware of any signs or history of aggression or fear in your dog, and if necessary, seek professional help from a qualified animal behaviorist or trainer.
6. Take legal advice: If you are ever involved in a dog-related incident, consult immediately with your lawyer to assess your case, explain your legal rights, and guide you through the necessary legal processes.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Citizenship is the gateway through which a number of rights in the Constitution can be accessed.  It enables a person to enjoy freedom of movement, freedom of trade, and political representation” (Constitutional Court, quoted in judgment below)

Note: Many South Africans who should be aware of this new development will be overseas and/or may not have heard of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision we discuss below. If you know of any such person, please consider forwarding this to them as soon as possible.

Reportedly, thousands of South Africans have lost their citizenship through applying for citizenship or nationality of another country without first obtaining Ministerial permission to do so.

Most will have done so unknowingly, ignorant of the fact that whilst dual citizenship itself is allowed, our Citizenship Act requires you to get permission beforehand. Only minors (under 18s) and persons acquiring foreign citizenship by marriage were exempt.

The good news is that the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) has now ordered that –

1. That provision is inconsistent with the Constitution and is invalid retrospectively; and
2. Citizens who lost their citizenship by operation of that provision “are deemed not to have lost their citizenship.”

But – the Constitutional Court still has to confirm the invalidity order

The SCA’s order of invalidity has no legal force unless and until confirmed by the Constitutional Court (CC), and there is (at date of writing) no indication of when this will go to the CC for confirmation, whether or not Home Affairs will oppose its confirmation in the CC, and whether or not they will continue to enforce the section in the interim. In the interim, tread very carefully if you are either planning to apply for foreign citizenship/nationality, or if you were deprived of SA citizenship and plan to return to the country in the near future.

Another “but” – never let your SA passport lapse!

That new judgment does not affect in any way the fact that, although you can travel freely around the world on your second passport, you must always enter and depart from South Africa on your valid SA passport.  Keep renewing it!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Look before you leap” (wise old proverb)

Don’t let the excitement of buying a property blind you to the necessity of doing your homework before you agree to anything. Look before you leap!

It’s not just a matter of buying the right property at the right price – make sure that your finances (and particularly your cash flow situation) won’t stop you from fulfilling the financial obligations your signature on the sale agreement binds you to.

Otherwise, you could find yourself in the same unenviable position as the property buyer recently ordered by the High Court to pay substantial damages after she couldn’t pay the required deposits.

Three sales, and the seller claims damages

• A trust sold a property to a buyer for R750,000.
• The buyer failed to pay the two required deposits totalling R280,000, the trust cancelled the sale and put the property up for resale.
• It resold the property for R500,000 and sued the buyer for its R250,000 loss on the sale, plus the estate agent’s commission of R22,500 it paid for the new sale.
• The buyer fought the claim on a variety of grounds, none of which found favour with the Court. It ordered the buyer to pay, in addition to legal costs on an attorney and client scale, a total in damages of R235,875. That’s a figure seemingly arrived at by the Court by taking into account an amount of R40,000 already paid in by the buyer, which presumably leaves the buyer down a total of just under R280k plus two sets of legal costs.

Important lessons for buyers and sellers 

1. Buyers: Before you sign…

   Of course, the big lesson here for buyers is to make sure they can comply with the terms of the sale agreement they sign, with particular emphasis on their ability to make payments as and when due.

2. And sellers: Before you sign…

   Sellers on the other hand will want to avoid all the risk, delay and cost that the trust in this case was put to by investigating upfront the financial position of all potential buyers before accepting any offer. Make sure also that the terms of your sale agreement protect you adequately in the event of any default by the buyer.

3. Seller: Mitigate your damages

   Our law requires that if you want to sue for losses you incur as a result of someone else’s breach of contract (or wrongdoing), you must first take reasonable steps to minimise your losses.

   As the Court put it: “… the mitigating rule is a rule where a breach of contract has occurred. The innocent party cannot merely sit back and allow their losses to accumulate; the party must take reasonable positive steps to prevent the occurrence or accumulation of losses. The rule does not require the innocent party to do anything more than a reasonable person could do under the same circumstances. Reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the mitigation steps may be claimed as additional damage suffered. The onus of proving what steps could reasonably have been taken, or that the expenses incurred were unreasonable, rests on the party in breach.” (Emphasis added) 

   As the seller, therefore, be sure to actively seek alternative buyers, use professionals to assist only as reasonably necessary, and accept only a reasonable resale price. In this case the evidence had established that the trust had acted reasonably both in reselling the property at the price it did, and in using the services of an estate agent to do so.

As always, agree to nothing without professional advice!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

South Africans employ an estimated 900,000 domestic workers. They assist us with a range of tasks that keep our homes running smoothly – from cleaning and gardening to cooking and childcare, their contributions are invaluable. However, as an employer, it is vital that you recognise and fulfill your legal obligations in order to establish a fair and lawful working relationship.

Compliance with these legal requirements has become increasingly important as law enforcement authorities become more and more vigilant in ensuring adherence, so without further ado let’s delve into the details of what the law expects from you.

Firstly, what do we mean by “domestic worker”?

In the context of this article, domestic workers refer to individuals who work in your home, including gardeners, cleaners, cooks, nannies, caregivers (to children, the aged, the sick, the frail or the disabled), au pairs, chauffeurs and the like. Excluded are farm workers and those working less than 24 hours a month for you.

5 key requirements

1. Employment Contract: It is essential to sign a written employment contract with your domestic worker. This contract should specify important details, including full name and ID number, remuneration, working hours, overtime, leave (annual, sick, maternity, compassionate, family responsibility), and job description (list roles and responsibilities). Having a clearly defined contract protects both of you and ensures a fair working relationship to your mutual benefit.
2. Minimum Wage: The current National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each “ordinary hour worked” is R25-42. Assuming a work month of 21 days x 8 hours per day, R25-42 per hour equates to R4,270-56 per month. The Living Wage calculator will help you check whether or not you are actually paying your domestic worker enough to cover a household’s “minimal need” (adjust the “Assumptions” in the calculator to ensure that the figures used are up to date).
3. Pay Slips: Every month, you must provide your domestic worker with a written pay slip. The pay slip should include your and your employee’s details, the ordinary and overtime hours worked during the payment period, the applicable rate of remuneration, and any deductions made by you. This document ensures transparency and accountability in the payment process.
4. UIF Registration: You must register your domestic worker for UIF (Unemployment Insurance Fund) and make monthly contributions. This will provide short-term relief to your employee during periods of unemployment, maternity leave, or illness. Both of you must contribute 1% of wages each month (i.e., 2% in total). Failure to comply is not only unfair to your employee, but it also exposes you to penalties and other legal consequences.
5. COIDA Registration: Under COIDA (the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act), you must register your domestic worker with the Compensation Commissioner to ensure that your worker (or dependants) is eligible for compensation in case of injuries, disabilities, or illnesses sustained while on duty.

It is crucial to understand that non-compliance with these obligations can lead to severe consequences for you, with the risk of legal disputes, referrals to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration), Labour Court fights, and so on.

Familiarise yourself with your obligations, seek professional guidance if needed (dismissals and retrenchments are particular minefields here!) and prioritise the well-being of your domestic workers to maintain a positive and lawful working relationship.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

More and more couples are opting to live together as permanent life partners rather than enter into a formal marriage. The risk for such couples is that whilst our law is steadily (if slowly and cautiously) extending many of the protections of formal marriage to unmarried life partners, that process is not by any means complete yet.

A recent High Court decision, refusing a life partner’s claim for interim maintenance after her relationship broke down, illustrates.

A “permanent romantic relationship” and a failed maintenance claim

• An opposite-sex couple had lived together in a “romantic” relationship for 8 or 9 years, having three young children and splitting when one partner left the common home.
• That partner then sued her ex-partner for (amongst other things) personal maintenance for herself for ten years or until her “death or remarriage”. She based that claim on her request for a declaration that she and her partner had lived as “partners in a permanent opposite-sex life-partnership in which the partners had undertaken reciprocal duties of support”. That main action is being defended by the ex-partner and is yet to come to trial.
• In the meantime, having successfully obtained interim maintenance orders for her children, she then asked the High Court to likewise order interim maintenance for herself as well. She asked for R56,000 per month plus payment of medical, motor and other expenses, together with a R1m initial contribution to costs.
• The Court dismissed this interim application, and whilst its analysis of our current law on the subject, with all the constitutional law ramifications, will be of great use and interest to lawyers, the practical result is what life partners should take note of.

What you must prove to get a maintenance order

Holding that “a ‘permanent romantic relationship’ is not synonymous with a permanent life partnership wherein the parties undertook reciprocal duties of support to one another within the context of a familial setting”, the Court found that the applicant “must first prove facts establishing that the duty of support existed, and that it existed in a familial setting.” (Emphasis added)

She could prove all that, said the Court, in the pending court case. For the moment she must live on her own means, without interim maintenance, until her main action comes to trial.

Practically, if you find yourself in a similar situation you have four choices if you want to claim personal maintenance for yourself (note that maintenance for children is an entirely separate issue, not subject to these limitations) –

1. As regards interim maintenance, you can hope that a court will assist you despite the outcome in this case, the Court here stating that “In reaching these conclusions we make it clear that they pertain only to the particular case presented to us by the applicant. Our conclusions are most certainly not intended to be of some broader implication or consequence. It thus of course remains open to anyone to approach court for declaratory relief of the nature which the applicant has sought in this matter and it is hoped that, should that occur, this judgment may provide assistance as to the manner in which such an approach should be made.”; or
2. You can try to prove at the full trial that your relationship was more than a “permanent romantic relationship” and was in fact a permanent life partnership with an undertaking of mutual support; or
3. You can hope for a change in the law creating an automatic duty of support between you. New legislation on the matter has been pending for many years but appears to be currently stalled. In addition, if this particular case proceeds to trial it may be that something further will emerge from that; or
4. Clearly the safest solution – you can put the matter beyond all doubt by signing a full “cohabitation agreement” as soon as your relationship becomes a permanent one.

What should be in your cohabitation agreement?

Although everyone’s own situation and needs will be unique, make sure that your cohabitation agreement (also sometimes called a “domestic partnership agreement”) sets out clearly your respective legal rights and financial arrangements both during your relationship and in the event of separation.

Cover questions such as –

• How will your various assets be divided?
• Do you undertake a reciprocal duty of support and on separation will each or both of you be entitled to personal maintenance and other financial support?
• What provisions are made for your children’s support and maintenance?
• Will there be any financial adjustment between you? What happens for example if only one of you works? Or if you paid for an extension to your life partner’s house or have been paying the bond? Or if one of you brought more into the relationship than the other?
• Who will take over ongoing liabilities and contracts such as leases, bonds, medical and life policies, monthly accounts and so on?
• What else that will need to be regulated in your particular circumstances?

Also make wills!

Supplement your cohabitation agreement with a valid will (“Last Will and Testament”) or perhaps a joint will. That’s the document that will count when you die and it’s the only safe way of ensuring that your last wishes are carried out, and that the loved ones you leave behind are properly looked after once you’re gone. Your cohabitation agreement and your wills are separate and essential documents, so have your lawyer draw them all for you at the same time.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews