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

“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!

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.

“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.

“Agree, for the law is costly” (Marcus Tullius Cicero)

As Roman lawyer and statesman Cicero pointed out two millennia ago, litigation comes at a cost. So first prize will always be to settle out of court. If you can’t settle and decide to sue, arm yourself with “deep pockets and nerves of steel”, particularly if you end up in the higher courts.

The upside is that if you win your case, you are likely to benefit from a costs order in your favour, our law generally following the rule that “costs follow the result”. There are however a few things to bear in mind with that –

No matter how “watertight” you may think your case is, litigation always carries an element of chance, and the hard fact is that you could lose for any number of unforeseeable reasons – evidence going badly, grey areas of law being interpreted against you, misdirections by whichever court you are in – those are just some of the risk factors you face. And if you do lose, you will be paying two sets of legal costs!
There are also exceptions to the “costs follow the result rule” – for example in labour matters, employees will normally not be ordered to pay any costs at all. Our courts have also been known to exercise their discretion to depart from the general rule in order to spare unsuccessful litigants from an adverse cost order where principles of fairness or special circumstances are involved, such as an attempt to protect the interests of minors or other vulnerable groups.
Remember also the “Pyrrhic Victory” factor – it’s all very well getting a costs order in your favour, but enforcing payment is another thing entirely, particularly if you are suing a debtor pleading poverty or an adversary skilled at dodging your attempts at recovery.
You are in any event unlikely to recover more than a portion of your costs. That sounds unfair but it’s how it works. To understand why, read on…

Three categories of legal costs

You will in practice come across three main types of costs –

“Party and Party costs”: These are the costs you are most likely to be awarded if you win. They will be “taxed” by a court official at whatever tariff applies to the court you find yourself in, and the tariffs vary widely – ask your lawyer for details.These tariffs are applied strictly and will only include your lawyer’s necessary costs for the actual litigation, not for pre-litigation consultations and the like. Nor will they include additional work carried out by your lawyer which the taxing official regards as not strictly necessary to the conduct of the case.
“Attorney and Client costs”: These costs are also subject to the same tariffs but their scope is broader, and the taxing official may allow for example additional attendances and correspondence, travel costs and the like. An example commonly given is correspondence to you from your lawyer keeping you advised of progress in the case – not strictly necessary for the litigation itself, but likely to be allowed as a recoverable “attorney and client” charge.You will only be awarded attorney and client costs where either they are specified in a contract with the other party (it’s a particularly common clause in property-related and commercial agreements), or where a court decides for whatever reason to punish your opponent with a “punitive” costs order.
“Attorney and Own Client costs”: These are additional costs you must pay your lawyer at whatever rates you have agreed to. The rates are normally incorporated in a mandate which you agree to when you first seek legal help, and they are not capped by the tariffs mentioned above. You cannot in practice recover them from the other party.

Alternative sources of funding

If you can’t afford to sue, or if you don’t want to risk your own money to fund a court case, ask about alternative sources of funding such as –

Contingency (“No Win, No Fee”) arrangements, which are offered by some attorneys, most commonly in personal injury cases.
Legal Aid is available to “poor” people who pass a Means Test and whose case meets all the other criteria set by Legal Aid South Africa.
Litigation Funding is normally only available for larger matters, and the funders apply strict criteria.

Although these alternatives should protect you from costs if you win the case, check what risk you run if you lose and an adverse costs order is made against you.

Litigate with your eyes open!

Go into litigation with your eyes open. Make sure you understand your prospects of success, what resources of time (and stress!) you will have to commit to the cause, what costs you might recover from your opponent and what you won’t, what you might have to pay the other side if you lose and so on.

“A court shall not authorise execution against immovable property which is the primary residence of a judgment debtor unless the court having considered all relevant factors, considers that execution against such property is warranted” (High Court Rules)

Selling a house in execution is not as simple as getting judgment and sending the Sheriff of the Court off to arrange a sale.

This article is important to you if –

You are about to lend money to, or do business with, an individual (or a trust or company) that you feel comfortable dealing with because they own a substantial asset in the form of a house.
You are trying to enforce a judgment against a recalcitrant debtor by selling the debtor’s house.
You live in a house threatened with sale in execution (or are trying to help a friend or relative in that position).
The “owned by a trust” angle (more on that below) will also be relevant to you if you are wondering whether to buy a residential property in your own name or in a trust or company.

The “judicial oversight” rule means delay and risk for the creditor

High Court Rules provide that “A court shall not authorise execution against immovable property which is the primary residence of a judgment debtor unless the court having considered all relevant factors, considers that execution against such property is warranted.”

This is to give effect to the right to have access to adequate housing which is enshrined in section 26 of our Constitution, and the court will look at whether the property is the primary residence of the debtor, at whether there may be an alternative means of satisfying the judgment debt, and at a host of other relevant factors.

Bottom line is that the court will not order an execution sale if it concludes that execution isn’t warranted or will deprive the debtor of adequate housing. Even a successful application for execution will involve cost and delay, whilst an unsuccessful one will be a body blow to the creditor’s prospects of recovering the debt.

That’s clearly a factor to bear in mind when lending to, or transacting with, an individual. But what if the house is owned by a trust or company?

The case of the trust-owned wine farm

A bank loaned R8.5m to a trust operating as a wine farm, wine cellar, wine merchant and restaurateur. The loans were secured by mortgage bonds over the property. Trustees, trust beneficiaries and trust employees occupied the house and cottages.
When the trust failed to repay the loans, the bank took judgment against it and applied for an order to sell the property in execution, an application vigorously opposed by the trustees.
The High Court held that the judicial oversight procedure only applies when a property is the debtor’s primary residence. In other words, it wouldn’t apply in a case such as this where, although the debtor is a trust, the actual occupants are individuals.
Not so, held the Supreme Court of Appeal on appeal: “Due regard must be had to the impact that the sale in execution is likely to have on vulnerable and poor beneficiaries who are occupying the immovable property owned by the judgment debtor, who are at risk of losing their only homes.” Moreover, the fact that the farm was used commercially did not deprive the occupants of constitutional protection.
“Judicial oversight” was accordingly necessary despite the properties being owned by a trust and not by the occupants themselves. Note that there are indications in the judgment that although this case concerns trust-owned property, the oversight principle is likely to apply equally to the occupants of company-owned properties.
On the facts however, the trustees had failed to show that “as a result of indigence, the beneficiaries will be left vulnerable to homelessness if the farm in question is sold in execution. On the contrary, the farm is valued at between R35 million and R40 million, and the reserve price was fixed at a minimum of R21 million; the ability to acquire alternative accommodation is unquestionable.” Also relevant – at one stage of negotiations, the trustees had actually consented to the judgment and to the property being declared executable.

The practical result is a win for the bank and the farm can now be sold in execution. But the principle remains – don’t assume that lending money to, or transacting with, a home-owning trust or company is a safe bet because of the value in the property. It carries the same risk as if the property were owned and occupied by an individual debtor.

“Landlords grow rich in their sleep” (John Stuart Mill)

Earning passive income as a landlord is an attractive proposition which can generate substantial wealth, but before you rush into anything be sure to know exactly what you are doing. “From homeowner to landlord: how to make it work” on Tech4Law shares six important steps on ensuring that you get the most out of your new venture.

We’ll add a seventh (critical) step – the earlier on in the process you ask your lawyer for advice, the better. No one is better placed to explain the legalities, to make sure you have all the right paperwork, to help you maximise the benefits, and to protect you from the risks.

“Knowledge is power” (old proverb)

Whether you are buying or selling property, remember that it is too late to ask questions after you sign the Deed of Sale (often called a “Sale Agreement” or “Offer to Purchase”).

“Knowledge is power” rings particularly true when it comes to any form of process with significant legal consequences, so here are some of the important questions you should ask upfront, before you commit to anything –

What do all the terms and conditions (particularly the legal-speak bits) in the Deed of Sale mean in practice?
Are my rights adequately protected and my risks minimised by the terms and conditions?
What costs will I have to pay, and when?
Is there anything in the Title Deed or local municipal laws and zoning restrictions that may impact me (as a buyer)?
Do I (as buyer) have a copy of the plans, and have all extensions and alterations been authorised by the local authority?
What defects have been disclosed in the Mandatory Disclosure Form, is a home inspection report worthwhile (and permitted by the deed of sale), what is the legal position around voetstoots clauses and patent and latent defects, and does the Consumer Protection Act apply to this sale?
As a buyer, have I checked for practical issues like local fibre availability, crime levels, security, school feeder zones, fixtures and fittings to remain, work-from-home practicality, buy-to-let possibilities etc?
Are there tenants (or other occupants) in the property, and if so what is their status and what does the deed of sale say about when they will vacate?
When does the buyer take possession and occupation? (Careful here, possession and occupation are two different concepts in law)
What arrangements have been made for date of transfer and payment of occupational interest, rates and taxes, levies, municipal service charges and the like?
In a residential complex: As a buyer, what Rules and Regulations will I be bound to, is there a danger of a special levy being levied, and do the latest financial statements for the Body Corporate or Homeowners Association show a healthy financial situation?
Have I as seller appointed my choice of conveyancer (transferring attorney)?

A final but vital thought here – whether you are buying or selling property, a lot of your money will be at stake here. Get professional advice before committing yourself to anything!

“… for the benefit of immunity from liability for its debts, those running the corporation may not use its formal identity to incur obligations recklessly, grossly negligently or fraudulently. If they do, they risk being made personally liable.” (Quoted in the judgment below)

Particularly in hard times, it is not at all uncommon to find yourself unable to recover a debt from a company in financial straits whilst at the same time you know that its directors hold assets in their own names. Can you attack them personally?

The answer is founded in the centuries-old concept of companies as separate legal entities or “juristic persons”. They trade in their own names and have their own assets and liabilities, so as a rule directors will not be personally liable for a company’s debts unless either –

They signed personal suretyship for them, or
They fall foul of one of our law’s provisions entitling a court to declare them personally liable.

So, in the absence of personal suretyships, when in practice can you recover a company debt from its director/s? And when are you as director at risk of being sued personally?

Let’s look at the facts and outcome of a recent High Court case for some insights –

The fraudulent car auction, the disappearing company and the director’s defence

The buyer of a car on auction subsequently discovered that it was a 2010 model despite being sold to her as a 2012 model.
She cancelled the sale, returned the car to the auction company that had sold it to her, and, when her demand for a refund of the purchase price was refused, took a default judgment against the company.
What followed was a saga of unsuccessful attempts to recover her money from the company, its address having changed and the director claiming to have resigned and sold the company, which he said had ceased trading and was awaiting deregistration.
The buyer eventually sued the director personally, asking the Court to “pierce the corporate veil”. The director’s defence boiled down to saying that he had not used the company “as a front”.

Piercing the corporate veil

“Piercing the corporate veil” in this context is, simply put, a court holding directors personally liable for a company’s debts by declaring that the company is to be “deemed not to be a juristic person” in respect of particular debt/s.

On what grounds will a court make such a declaration? Per the High Court in this matter:

Where there is “fraud and the improper use of a company or conduct of the affairs of a company” or
“[W]here its incorporation, use or an act performed by or on its behalf [the Court’s underlining] constitutes an unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as a separate entity.”

The director’s misrepresentation and “cavalier disregard” for the company’s interests

On the facts, the Court found that the director had misrepresented the details of the motor vehicle to the buyer, that this misrepresentation was material and induced her to purchase the vehicle, and that it “was deliberate such that it amounted to fraud, alternatively dishonesty, further alternatively improper conduct.”
“Additionally, as the director and owner, he acted with cavalier disregard for the interests of the company … Such conduct is manifestly not in the best interest of the company and may be considered reckless and dishonest. This conduct was indubitably with callous disregard for its effect on the company as a separate legal entity and at a time when he describes its financial situation as being parlous.Therefore, whilst a director is entitled to resign at any time, his resignation cannot be used as a means of evading his fiduciary duties as a director.”
Concluding that “the conduct of the director adversely affected the [buyer] in a way that reasonably should not be countenanced and which constitutes an unconscionable abuse of the company’s juristic personality”, the Court declared him personally liable to repay her the purchase price, interest, and costs.

“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!” (Shakespeare)

“Family helps family in times of need” – that’s been part of human culture since long before the dawn of history but be sure to observe all legal formalities. A recent High Court decision provides an excellent example of the risks of not doing so.

Parents lose R540,000

A daughter in the middle of a divorce borrowed R540,000 from her parents so that she could buy out her spouse’s 50% share in her house.
As far as her parents were concerned it was a repayable loan, but when they had to sue their daughter for repayment they were in for a rude shock.
Although their daughter had admitted asking to “borrow” the money, the Court held that the parents had failed to prove (the onus being on them to do so) “the existence of a loan agreement, its terms and consequent breach thereof on a balance of probabilities”. Nor had they proved “the material terms and conditions agreed upon including the amount of the loan and the date of repayment”. Another nail in their coffin – they had failed to prove animus contrahendi (lawyer speak for “a serious intention to contract”).
Their claim was dismissed with costs, so it’s goodbye to their R540k.

5 reasons why you need a contract, no matter how strong your family

One wonders how many families have rued their attitude of “We have a very close and strong family, and we trust each other with everything. No way do we need a contract. Forget it.”

But it’s not just a matter of trust. Consider these scenarios –

Without a written contract, who is to say for certain that you are all on the same page as to whether it is a gift or a loan, and if so when and how it is repayable? You could in all innocence have two totally different visions of what you have agreed on. It’s only fair to everyone to put everything on record.
Even the strongest families go through rough patches – it may be highly unlikely, but it happens, and our law reports are full of unforeseen and bitter family fights.
What if (horrible thought, but we must all be realistic) one of you dies before the debt is repaid? Now you are dealing not with a parent, a grandparent, or a child, but with the executor of their estate, an executor who will need proof of the loan and its terms.
If a divorce should intervene, a family loan is as much an asset (or liability) as any other, and solid proof of it will be essential.
The same applies to an attack by a third party such as the taxman or a creditor.

Bottom line: Have a clear, written contract recording at the very least the amount of the loan and the agreed date and terms of repayment. For significant amounts of money, professional advice is essential.

A final thought – ask about the National Credit Act

It may seem strange in the context of a family, but your loan agreement will be unenforceable if you didn’t register as a “credit provider” in terms of the National Credit Act (NCA) in circumstances where you should have registered. In many cases it won’t be necessary, in that it doesn’t apply where family members are dependent on each other. Plus, only “arm’s length” transactions will as a general rule fall under the NCA. But there are grey areas here, so specific advice is again essential.

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

Three categories of legal costs

Alternative sources of funding

Litigate with your eyes open!

The “judicial oversight” rule means delay and risk for the creditor

The case of the trust-owned wine farm

The fraudulent car auction, the disappearing company and the director’s defence

Piercing the corporate veil

The director’s misrepresentation and “cavalier disregard” for the company’s interests

Parents lose R540,000

5 reasons why you need a contract, no matter how strong your family

A final thought – ask about the National Credit Act

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

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

Three categories of legal costs

Alternative sources of funding

Litigate with your eyes open!

The “judicial oversight” rule means delay and risk for the creditor

The case of the trust-owned wine farm

The fraudulent car auction, the disappearing company and the director’s defence

Piercing the corporate veil

The director’s misrepresentation and “cavalier disregard” for the company’s interests

Parents lose R540,000

5 reasons why you need a contract, no matter how strong your family

A final thought – ask about the National Credit Act

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

Cookies Disclaimer