B Lubbe & Associates Attorneys B Lubbe - Table View Based Litigation & Divorce Attorneys

“For many, many people, I’m a firm believer that 60 is the new 50.” (Carolyn Aldwin, director of Oregon State University’s Center for Healthy Aging Research)

As even the youngest Boomers (the generation born between 1946 and 1964) approach the “Big Sixty”, an increasing number of employees will be thinking about whether or not they want to retire. And an increasing number of employers will be wondering whether to ask them to stay on or to retire them (and if so, when).

Bear in mind that our law does not recognise any concept of a general “normal/standard retirement age” and that you need to tread carefully here because a dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal is that the employer unfairly discriminates against an employee, directly or indirectly, on any arbitrary ground such as age.

Our courts look upon automatically unfair dismissals with particular disfavour, and a guilty employer can expect harsh penalties.

When is age-related dismissal fair?

As an employer you can avoid a finding of automatically unfair dismissal if you prove –

That there is a clause in your employment contract specifying an agreed retirement date, or
That there is a “normal or agreed retirement age” for employees “employed in the capacity of the employee concerned”, and
That the dismissal is based on age and not, for example, a disguised retrenchment or dismissal for some other reason.

What if your employee wants to stay on after retirement date?

“Sixty really is the new Fifty” says at least one recent scientific study, and it certainly is the case that many employees want to carry on working long after 60 or 65. Sometimes economic necessity is the motivation, sometimes a need to carry on being useful, sometimes just a reluctance to “retire and go fishing”.

Equally, many employers are reluctant to lose the experience, loyalty and talent of senior staff and will happily accept a request to stay on.

However, a recent Labour Appeal Court case confirms the need for all concerned to tread carefully in such a situation –

Dismissed 9 months after reaching 60

An employee turned 60 but carried on working and being paid as normal. No mention was made of the fact that he had reached the agreed retirement age set out in his employment contract.
Nine months later however, his employer told him that his services would now terminate as he had reached the agreed retirement age.
He disputed this as an automatically unfair dismissal, arguing in the Labour Appeal Court that a new employment contract or “tacit” (implied) contract had come into effect, and that this contract extended his employment indefinitely or at least to 65. Alternatively, he said, his employer had waived (relinquished) the retirement clause.
The Court disagreed, holding that the employment contract and its agreed retirement date had continued uninterrupted, with both employer and employee having a right to terminate employment at any time thereafter.
Per the Court: “The focus is not so much on when the employee reached his or her retirement date, but rather that the employee has already reached or passed the normal or agreed retirement age.” There was also nothing in the conduct of the parties to suggest they had entered into a new tacit contract or that the employer had waived its rights.
The employee’s enforced retirement stands.

An action list for employers

Avoid a situation where your employee can no longer do the job but there is no agreed retirement date. That would leave you trying to prove a valid ground for dismissal – incapacity or incompetence perhaps. Not easily done, and traumatic for you both.
Moreover, it’s not always easy to prove what a “normal” or “standard practice” retirement age is for your industry and circumstances. Much safer to have a specific retirement clause in all your employment contracts.
Don’t try to unilaterally impose retirement clauses on employees if their existing contracts don’t already have them – this is a matter for negotiation and agreement.
Diarise each employee’s retirement date and before that date rolls around, either make it clear to the employee that their employment is about to end automatically or put in place a new employment contract.

Notes for employees

If you work beyond an agreed or normal retirement age, the harsh reality is that you are, as the Labour Court has put it before “working on borrowed time”.
Without a written agreement, setting out clearly when your new retirement date is, you have no guarantee that your post-retirement employment is in any way secure or legally protected.

As always with employment law matters there are complexities, grey areas and substantial downsides to getting it wrong, so seek specific 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.

“The Constitution guarantees that administrative action will be reasonable, lawful and procedurally fair. It also makes sure that you have the right to request reasons for administrative action that negatively affects you.” (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development)

Bureaucratic decisions can and do have far-reaching consequences for us, both financially and in our personal lives. It’s good to know therefore that whenever your rights are affected by any such decision, you have access to the protections set out in PAJA (the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act).

In a nutshell, PAJA provides that “administrative decisions” by government departments, parastatals and the like must be fair, lawful and reasonable. Decision makers must follow fair procedures, allow you to have your say before deciding, and give you written reasons for their decisions when asked.

If a decision goes against you, your first step should be to use any internal appeal procedures. Ultimately you can go to court, although often a lawyer’s letter or two will solve the problem without the need for litigation.

A recent High Court decision illustrates one way in which PAJA can help you if all else fails –

A service station’s building plans rejected

A service station submitted to its local authority building plans for a proposed refurbishment.
After a series of meetings with the municipality and alterations to the plans as various issues were raised and resolved, the service station owners thought they were home and dry. But in the end the plans were not accepted on the basis that the application was for an extension of the service station which could not be approved in terms of the local Town Planning Scheme.
The High Court however found that factually there was no “extension” involved and that the municipality had therefore made an “error in law”.
That opened the door for the Court to review the municipality’s decision, which it duly set aside. In referring the decision back to the municipality for reconsideration, the Court directed it to make a decision within 21 days, and without regarding the proposed refurbishment as being an extension of the building.

A final thought – strict time limits apply with PAJA, so if a decision goes against you seek professional help without delay!

No matter how good your product and your service levels, the hard reality in business is that customer issues will arise. Perhaps they will be genuine problems or perhaps they are just misperceptions, but either way you need to act quickly and effectively to resolve them. Particularly in these times of online reviews making or breaking reputations so quickly and easily.

Here’s a tried and tested method to boost customer satisfaction generally, to change complaints into compliments, and to resolve all forms of conflict (it is equally useful for workplace and personal issues) with kindness and respect.

Read “How to Use the HEART Method to Improve Customer Satisfaction” on The Real Time Report’s website.

“… had the respondent imposed more moderate penalties, it would likely not have had the desired effect, or put differently, the same persuasive sting for individuals of substantial means.” (Extract from judgment below)

Buying “plot and plan” in a residential complex allows you the freedom to build your own dream house in a secure environment, quite apart from providing what is likely to be sound long-term investment. Just make sure that you will actually be ready to build within the time frame required by the HOA (homeowners’ association). If you don’t, you risk having to transfer the plot back to the developer (a costly exercise), or you could be lumbered with penalty levies many times higher than normal levies.

You can ask a court to reduce the penalty, but…

Our law gives us general protection from excessive “out of proportion” penalties by means of the Conventional Penalties Act, which in the section headed “Reduction of excessive penalty” provides that –

“If upon the hearing of a claim for a penalty, it appears to the court that such penalty is out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the creditor by reason of the act or omission in respect of which the penalty was stipulated, the court may reduce the penalty to such extent as it may consider equitable in the circumstances: Provided that in determining the extent of such prejudice the court shall take into consideration not only the creditor’s proprietary interest, but every other rightful interest which may be affected by the act or omission in question.”

However, as a recent High Court decision illustrates, you will have your work cut out for you if you want the court to exercise that discretion in regard to penalty levies.

The ‘persuasive sting’ of 5x normal penalties

The HOA of a “luxury/ultra-luxury” residential estate required in its constitution that –
- Each owner must start construction within one year of transfer,
- Should construction not commence timeously the developer had the option to require re-transfer of the erf to it,
- If the developer did not exercise this option, the HOA could “impose whatever penalties it deems appropriate in its sole discretion” on the owner.
When several erf owners failed to build within the one-year deadline, the HOA passed resolutions imposing penalty levies on them until they started construction.
These levies started off at 2x the normal levies, and over an eight-year period were increased in stages to 5x the normal.
The HOA sued the defaulting owners in the Regional Court to recover these levies, winning both in that Court and on appeal to the High Court.
It was, held the High Court, up to the owners challenging the amount of the penalty to prove –
- What prejudice the HOA suffered,
- That the penalty was disproportionate to that prejudice, and
- The extent to which the penalty should be reduced.
In addition to the actual monetary prejudice (damages) suffered by the HOA, it was said the Court necessary to consider the HOA’s other “rightful interests” that might be affected by the failure to build, such as problems with security, nuisance, aesthetics, damage, and value loss caused by extended building activities. In this case, one of the additional reasons for the penalty provision was to discourage speculation in the erven by buyers intending to re-sell the plots for profit rather than build and live in the estate.
There was prejudice to the HOA even though the penalty provision was intended to create a deterrent rather than compensation for default – the prejudice was to the HOA’s “right to enforce concerted action for the common good, and to its interest in obtaining concerted action”.
Whether the penalty was “out of proportion” to the prejudice could be assessed in three ways:
1. By looking at comparable situations where the desired result was achieved (the Court compared another similar matter in which a 10x normal penalty was reduced by the Court to 8x normal, much more than the 5x imposed here),
2. By looking at the size of this penalty and the penalties in general in relation to the income and expenditure of the HOA, and
3. “By exercising one’s sense of fairness and justice.”
The HOA had been fair and reasonable in phasing in the increases over an eight-year period.
Imposing more “moderate” penalties “would likely not have had the desired effect, or put differently, the same persuasive sting for individuals of substantial means.”

In the end result, the owners must pay the full penalty levies, interest, and costs on an attorney and client scale.

If you are emigrating, or perhaps just going overseas for an extended holiday or work contract, you may well leave behind some form of “unfinished business”. Perhaps you own a property, other assets or bank accounts needing attention, or have outstanding tax/business/financial affairs, or contracts to be signed, cars to be licenced, or something else unresolved that requires your future agreement or signature. Even if you can’t think of anything specific, consider executing (before you leave of course) an appropriate power of attorney in favour of someone you trust to act for you.

What is a power of attorney?

A Power of Attorney (“POA”) a document you sign authorising someone else to manage your affairs on your behalf as your agent. You can grant it for a specific purpose as a “Special Power of Attorney” or it can be a widely worded “General Power of Attorney”. In theory you can grant power of attorney orally, but in practice no one will (or should) act on that.

You must be at least 18 years old to execute a POA, and it remains valid only for so long as you have “legal capacity”.

You can terminate the POA at any time.

Why is a power of attorney important?

You can in a pinch execute and sign contracts, legal forms and the like whilst in a foreign country, but it can be a real mission. Depending on the circumstances, you may need to find (and pay) a notary public or embassy/consular official to authenticate documents, your signature, copies of papers etc. If it’s an embassy or consulate you need, you could find yourself travelling to another city, perhaps even another country. And if everything isn’t done exactly right the first time (a particular risk if you are dealing with someone not fully versed in South African law and procedure), you could find yourself repeating the process – perhaps even more than once in a sort of “Ground Hog Day” scenario. All avoidable if you leave behind in South Africa a valid and correctly structured POA.

How should you structure it?

The structure you will need depends on what affairs you need dealt with and why. It can be difficult to decide whether a POA is appropriate for a particular purpose, and if so how wide or how restricted you should make the powers you are granting to your agent. It can also be a challenge to find the correct wording to satisfy the requirements of whichever authority or other party is involved – for instance, specific forms are required by the Deeds Office, SARS, and banks. You might also need to leave behind more than one POA, each structured for a particular purpose. Similarly, you may be uncertain as to who to appoint as your agent, who is best qualified for each purpose, even perhaps who can you trust to act professionally and honestly.

There is no prescribed form and no list of required formalities for a valid POA but there are many possible permutations and legal risks involved, so the only way to ensure that it is valid and fit-for-purpose is to seek professional assistance specific to your circumstances.

You should always take as much security for your claims as you possibly can before advancing credit or lending money to a debtor. That’s because if your debtor fails and is “liquidated” (if a corporate) or “sequestrated” (if an individual), without security you will have only a concurrent claim in the estate.

And with a concurrent claim, you will be lucky to get back more than a few cents in the Rand, because you will rank right at the bottom of the ladder after both secured creditors and preferent creditors (employees, SARS etc).

So, first prize is always to hold security for your claim

Having a “secured claim” greatly increases your chances of being paid out a decent amount (hopefully your claim in full), because the proceeds of the asset/s subject to your security are earmarked (after payment of some estate costs and the like) to paying out the claims of the “secured creditors” holding security over each particular asset.

If your debtor owns immovable property, registering a mortgage bond over it will generally give you a very strong security, whilst with movable property you have various options. There are many options here, applicable to various types of claim in various circumstances – liens, cessions, tacit hypothecs, rights of retention and so on – but for the moment let’s have a look at the more general concepts of pledge and notarial bonds.

One of the strongest options with movables is to take a pledge over them, but that will require you to actually hold the movables in your possession. And of course it’s not always viable for a debtor to give you that possession – a much more likely scenario with most business debtors is that they need to keep possession and use their assets (machinery, fittings, vehicles, stock etc) to carry on trading. So what are your options in that situation?

The two types of notarial bond

In that case – where you cannot take actual possession of the movables – consider registering a notarial bond over them. There are two types of notarial bond, both requiring registration in the Deeds Office –

Your first and best option is a special notarial bond. This gives you substantial security, in the form of a “deemed pledge”. You now have first bite at the cherry over any movable asset listed in the bond, even though you don’t have possession. Note that these assets need to be clearly identified in the bond (“….specified and described in the bond in a manner which renders it readily recognisable…”) so list full descriptions, models, serial numbers, and the like for every asset.
Secondly, take a general notarial bond over all the debtor’s movable assets generally. That will bring into your net those assets which are not individually identifiable, such as stock, building materials and so on. The bad news is that a general notarial bond in itself gives you only a weak preference on liquidation, but the good news is that you can convert that into full, “real”, security if you move quickly enough.

How do you convert a General Notarial Bond into full security?

Provided you seek legal assistance quickly at the first sign of financial distress in your debtor, you may well have time to “perfect” the bond into full security by way of a court order prior to liquidation. Armed with the court order you take possession of all the debtor’s movables and hey presto you have a “real” security over them.

Let’s look at a recent example –

A supermarket group, owed over R2m by a trading store, held two general notarial bonds over its movable assets (presumably shop fittings, fixtures, equipment, stock etc).
Fearing that the store’s owner (a company) was trading in insolvent circumstances and would be liquidated, the creditor applied for an urgent High Court order allowing it to perfect its security.
The debtor opposed the application, asking the Court to exercise its discretion not to grant a perfection order. But the Court refused to do so, and granted the perfection order, on the basis that the creditor had no other remedy available to it (such as a damages claim). The Court was equally unimpressed with the debtor’s argument that the terms of the bonds were “unconscionable and contra bonos mores [offensive to conscience]”.

That’s clear judicial confirmation of the strong position you are likely to find yourself in where you hold properly drawn and registered general notarial bonds, and act quickly to perfect them in appropriate circumstances.

“The evil in this case is the wearing of high heels as opposed to flat shoes. It is a case that pits sartorial elegance against health and safety at the workplace” (Extract from judgment below)

Employers have a general duty to ensure health and safety in the workplace. But as a recent Labour Court case illustrates, policies dealing with these issues must be correctly drawn, implemented and enforced.

A mine’s “no high heels” policy challenged

A mining operation introduced a health and safety policy, applicable to all employees, requiring that: “Appropriate shoes must be worn at all times. Slippers, high heels and open shoes are not allowed”. A later clarification provided that “Only flat shoes may be worn at work…”. After a risk assessment around the issue of wearing high heels two years later, a further clarification was issued: “Employees are thus hereby instructed to wear only flat shoes when entering the mine premises and safety boots to be worn where applicable … Non-compliance with regards to this instruction(s) may lead to disciplinary action.”
A Human Resources Controller was observed on two occasions to be wearing high heels, and was instructed to comply with the policy, despite her pleas to be allowed to retain a “feminine look” at work.
She complied, but vented her dissatisfaction to several colleagues, asking them to come together to express dissatisfaction with the policy. She also unsuccessfully asked a trade union official to come to her aid.
She was dismissed after being found guilty at a disciplinary enquiry of gross insubordination and incitement. After unsuccessfully challenging her dismissal in the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration), she approached the Labour Court.

The Labour Court’s decision, and lessons from its judgment

The Labour Court overturned the dismissal and ordered the mine to retrospectively re-instate the employee.

Whilst this decision stemmed from the Court’s conclusion that the employer had failed on the facts to prove either insubordination or incitement on the part of the employee, its judgment highlighted a number of factors that all employers should bear in mind –

Policies must be justified, lawful, clearly drafted, and unambiguous. Part of the employer’s problem here was its initial failure to support the policy with a risk assessment, and to unambiguously specify which parts of the mining premises it applied to.
Policies must be enforced consistently.
Terms and conditions of employment cannot be changed unilaterally.
Employees have a right of freedom of expression, and a right to lawfully question (and express their views about) workplace policies.
Insubordination can manifest as a refusal to obey a reasonable and lawful demand, or as a challenge to or defiance of an employer’s authority, but only where that authority is lawful and/or reasonable.
“Whether misconduct amounts to insubordination depends on a number of factors, including the willfulness of the employee’s defiance, the reasonableness of the order that was defied and the actions of the employer prior to the purported act of defiance.”
In this case there was no evidence of a deliberate and serious challenge to or defiance of the policy. The employee had complied with the clarified policy after being instructed to do so, albeit grudgingly. It would only have been insubordination, said the Court, if she had said she would refuse to comply in future.
A charge of incitement in the workplace requires proof of incitement of other employees to act unlawfully, for example to take part in an unprotected strike – which the employer in this case had failed to prove.

None of the above detracts in any way from your duty as an employer to implement policies for the protection of workplace health and safety – but do it correctly!

“Strategy is the art of carefully selecting where a business applies its focus and resources in order to achieve its ultimate aim. A large part of the work is in selecting what not to do rather than what’s to be added.”

Strategic planning is an essential part of optimising your business for success. Without it you will drift rudderless, unfocused and wasting effort and resources with no clear destination in mind.

Jon Cherry’s article “The Four Strategies” on his Cherryflava website lists four key areas to consider – in combination, they will help drive your business forward, inspiring all the work, and the people, that hold your “North Star” vision close.

“We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep.” (Shakespeare)

We aren’t comfortable thinking about our mortality, but death comes to all of us and it is our loved ones who will suffer if we don’t make plans to look after them whilst we still can.

First prize here will always be a full estate planning exercise, but at the very least put a will in place. There is no other way of ensuring that your loved ones’ interests are protected, that they inherit what you want them to inherit, and that your estate is wound up by an executor you trust to act with integrity and professionalism.

Formalities rule

Make sure that your will is a proper and valid one, professionally drawn in accordance with all the required legal formalities.

As we shall see below, our courts have only a limited ability to help out when requirements aren’t fully complied with, and that can be disastrous for your dependants.

A dying mother’s instruction to draw a will – too little, too late

A tragic High Court case from 2021 illustrates the dangers of delay –

Dying of terminal cancer, a mother filled out a bank form headed “Will Application / Aansoek om testament”. In it she gave the bank instructions to draw her will.
Her intentions were laid out clearly in the document – to leave everything to her minor child.
Unfortunately she died the next day, before her will was drawn and signed. Her husband claimed that she had accordingly died “intestate” (without a valid will) leaving him to inherit a full “child’s share” with a minimum of R250,000. As their marriage was in community of property, the husband was already a 50% owner of all the marital assets, and this estate not being a large one the practical effect appears to be that he would likely inherit everything, and the child would get nothing.
A group of relatives, trying to give effect to the mother’s wishes and to protect the child’s interests, asked the High Court to accept the bank’s instruction document as a valid will in terms of a section in the Wills Act which provides that: “If a court is satisfied that a document or the amendment of a document drafted or executed by a person who has died since the drafting or execution thereof, was intended to be his will or an amendment of his will, the court shall order the Master to accept that document, or that document as amended, for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965 (Act 66 of 1965), as a will, although it does not comply with all the formalities for the execution or amendment of wills referred to in subsection (1).” (Emphasis supplied).

A cruel twist of fate

There was no doubt here that the bank form correctly set out the mother’s wishes. But there was a fatal problem – as the Court put it “…the content of the document in issue and the circumstances surrounding its execution indicate clearly that the deceased did not intend it to be anything other than a drafting instruction. There is nothing to support the contention that the deceased intended the document to be her will; everything points to the contrary.”

The form could therefore not be accepted as a valid will, and the child is left with little or nothing other than the Court’s expressed hope that the husband would if practicable “honour his late wife’s declared wishes regardless of the fact that due to a cruel twist of fate [the child] did not end up being entrenched in a will as she had intended.”

Without a doubt the Court would have come to the child’s assistance if it could have, but the clear wording of the Wills Act left it unable to do so.

Make a will – now!

None of us knows when Death will come knocking at our door. If you don’t already have a valid, updated will in place, make sure that “Make a Will” or “Update my Will” is at the very top of your priority list.

Your will could well be the most important document you ever sign, so getting professional advice and assistance is an easy decision here.

“Co-ownership is the mother of disputes” (old Roman law maxim)

There can be big advantages to buying property jointly but be aware of the risks and take steps to lessen them before you put pen to paper.

The problem comes if there is a falling-out with your co-owner. Perhaps you come to blows on your usage of the property, or on the incurring of expenses, or on whether it is time to sell, or perhaps you are splitting from each other entirely. That could be a business partnership terminating, or a marriage ending in divorce, or (as in the case we discuss below) a failed romantic relationship. Our courts must regularly resolve bitter joint-ownership disputes between ex-spouses, ex-friends, ex-colleagues, siblings, and close relatives – none of whom dreamed they might ever come to blows when they first hatched plans to buy property jointly.

If a dispute does arise, how will you resolve it? And if you split up, who keeps the property? Or do you sell it jointly, and if so how, and when? How will the bond and other property debts be settled?

The good news is that by and large the risk of dispute can be reduced with a bit of foresight and planning. Preferably with professional advice and assistance – this is after all likely to be an important asset in both your estates.

Let’s have a look at a recent High Court case to illustrate –

A breakup and a fight

A couple in a “romantic relationship” co-habited in a house of which they were the joint registered owners in undivided half shares.
When the relationship broke down irretrievably, the partners were unable to agree on a method of ending the property ownership. One partner moved out and the other, after changing the locks, applied to the High Court for an order terminating the joint ownership and appointing a receiver/liquidator to sell it.
The other party fought this application, contending that the couple had, in addition to being in a personal relationship, also been in a “universal partnership” which still existed.

A co-owner can normally insist on partition of the property at any time

The general rule in our law is this: “No co-owner is normally obliged to remain a co-owner against his will.” Thus “every co-owner of property may insist on a partition of the property at any time. Even if there is an agreement to constitute perpetual joint ownership, the co-owner may demand partition at any time. If the co-owners cannot agree on the way the property is to be divided, then the Court is empowered to make an order which appears to be fair and equitable.”

That opens the door to a wide range of options for the court, but often it means an order for sale of the property (possibly by public or private auction) and division of the net proceeds between the joint owners.

But is it “bound” or “free” co-ownership?

But it’s more complicated than that. Our law recognizes two types of co-ownership –

In a “free” co-ownership, the co-ownership is the only legal relationship between the co-owners. In this event, the rule above applies – either joint owner can insist on division at any time.
In a “bound” co-ownership however “there is a separate and distinct legal relationship between them of which the co-ownership is but one consequence. Co-ownership is not the primary or sole purpose of their relationship”.

In this event, the co-ownership can only be dissolved when the primary relationship is terminated. In this case, the party opposing the court application said that no order of division could be made until the “universal partnership” between the parties had ended.

The Court found that there had indeed been a universal partnership in existence, in other words that this had been a case of “bound” co-ownership. But it also held (on the facts) that both the romantic relationship and the universal partnership had ended when the parties stopped living together. The romantic relationship was the ‘tie’ between the parties and when it came to an end, any situation of bound co-ownership became a free co-ownership to which the “end at any time” rule applied.

The result – the Court ordered the joint ownership terminated and appointed a receiver and liquidator to sell the property, pay all the property debts, and divide the proceeds between the parties.

The remedy

So the risk is finding yourself in the same unhappy position as the ex-partners in this case, having to ask the High Court to sort out your dispute for you.

Happily however there is a simple remedy. Before you buy property jointly, have a professional draw you a full agreement setting out (at the very minimum) –

The nature of your relationship. In a co-habitation scenario you should probably also have a full “co-habitation” agreement, whilst a business scenario should be linked to your existing arrangement.
The best vehicle for co-ownership – for some, a simple “let’s put the house in both our names” will be enough, for others a company or a trust may be better.
Who will own what percentage of the property.
Who will contribute what to the costs of purchase and to the property expenses and upkeep.
Who will have what use of the property.
What will happen if one or both of you wants to leave the relationship, dies, or is incapacitated.
And so on – every situation will be unique.

If the parties in this case had put such an agreement in place, they might well have saved themselves the stress, wasted time and legal costs of a protracted and complex dispute. The liquidator/receiver’s charges for selling the property and paying out their shares to them will no doubt rub a lot of salt into all those wounds.

A final thought: Having a formal contract in place is not a forecast that things will go wrong between you – on the contrary, it should greatly reduce the risk of any dispute or unhappiness arising in the first place.

When is age-related dismissal fair?

What if your employee wants to stay on after retirement date?

Dismissed 9 months after reaching 60

An action list for employers

Notes for employees

A service station’s building plans rejected

You can ask a court to reduce the penalty, but…

The ‘persuasive sting’ of 5x normal penalties

What is a power of attorney?

Why is a power of attorney important?

How should you structure it?

So, first prize is always to hold security for your claim

The two types of notarial bond

How do you convert a General Notarial Bond into full security?

A mine’s “no high heels” policy challenged

The Labour Court’s decision, and lessons from its judgment

Formalities rule

A dying mother’s instruction to draw a will – too little, too late

A cruel twist of fate

Make a will – now!

A breakup and a fight

A co-owner can normally insist on partition of the property at any time

But is it “bound” or “free” co-ownership?

The remedy

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

When is age-related dismissal fair?

What if your employee wants to stay on after retirement date?

Dismissed 9 months after reaching 60

An action list for employers

Notes for employees

A service station’s building plans rejected

You can ask a court to reduce the penalty, but…

The ‘persuasive sting’ of 5x normal penalties

What is a power of attorney?

Why is a power of attorney important?

How should you structure it?

So, first prize is always to hold security for your claim

The two types of notarial bond

How do you convert a General Notarial Bond into full security?

A mine’s “no high heels” policy challenged

The Labour Court’s decision, and lessons from its judgment

Formalities rule

A dying mother’s instruction to draw a will – too little, too late

A cruel twist of fate

Make a will – now!

A breakup and a fight

A co-owner can normally insist on partition of the property at any time

But is it “bound” or “free” co-ownership?

The remedy

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

Cookies Disclaimer