“7,000 people have already been arrested for not wearing masks and most of them now have criminal records” (Police Minister Bheki Cele in mid-January)

We all know that wearing a face mask is the right and the safe thing to do, but it is also a legal requirement – and it’s one that you really don’t want to breach.

Firstly, can you be arrested for not wearing a mask?

The short answer is yes, the amended Disaster Management Act Regulations providing that –

• Everyone (except children under six) must always wear a face mask (covering nose as well as mouth!) when in a public place.
• It is a criminal offence not to comply with a verbal instruction to wear a face mask by an “enforcement officer” (defined to include SAPS and SANDF members, “peace officers” such as magistrates, Justices of the Peace, correctional services officers, municipal law enforcement officers and other designated officials). There are also reports of arrests without such an instruction being given beforehand, and as the police appear to be using their interpretation of the Regulations to conduct these “arrests without warning”, rather be safe than sorry – assume that if you have no mask you risk immediate arrest and prosecution.
• You are liable on conviction to “a fine or a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
• You need not wear a mask while undertaking “vigorous exercise” (not defined in the Regulations but presumably including fast running, cycling and the like – err on the side of caution here) provided that you continually maintain a distance of one and a half meters from any other person.

You could end up with a criminal record, and that’s real trouble

You can of course elect to go to court to fight the charge, but often you will also be given the alternative of paying an “admission of guilt” fine. 

It will be a tempting offer at the time but be careful – paying a fine is one thing but if you end up with a criminal record (an entry in the SAPS Criminal Record Centre database) you will regret it. Imagine for example a scenario where you apply for a job, or a travel visa, or a firearms licence, or for credit (such as a home loan). And suddenly up pops your long-forgotten criminal record, a nasty surprise at the worst possible time.

Plans to change the law so that only some admission of guilt fines will result in a criminal record have so far come to nought. So as the law stands you will end up with a “deemed” conviction and sentence – and thus a record – if you are arrested and your fingerprints are taken. Which is exactly what the Minister says will happen to you.

And once you have a criminal record, it’s not at all easy to get rid of it.

Three ways you can try to remove your criminal record  

1. Firstly, you can apply for “expungement” of the record to remove it from the CRC database, but that option is only available to you after 10 years and for certain “minor offences”. It will also take a long time to process – “20 – 28 weeks” per SAPS. Note that some specified minor convictions fall away automatically after 10 years – ask for specific advice.
2. Secondly, you could ask a court to set aside your conviction and sentence – costly, not an immediate fix, and not guaranteed to succeed.
3. Thirdly, you could hope that planned amendments to our criminal procedure laws will retrospectively come to your aid – speculative for now.

The bottom line – wear your mask, and don’t admit guilt without legal 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

“…a third party is expected to do more than rely upon a bold assurance by another party regarding his or her marital status” (quoted in judgment below)

If you are taking advantage of our current low interest rates and reduced selling prices to buy a property, make sure that you establish the seller’s marital status with something more than what the seller tells you.

Your risk comes in if the seller is married in community of property. That’s because, whilst our law generally allows spouses in such a marriage to “perform any juristic act with regard to the joint estate without the consent of the other spouse”, there are exceptions.

And one exception relates to immovable property. A spouse needs the written consent of the other to sell, mortgage or burden the property (by granting a servitude over it for example). Without that written consent the transaction is void, unlawful and unenforceable.

Which is where the danger comes in. Consider this scenario – you pay for and take transfer of a property from a seller who you think is unmarried, but a spouse suddenly appears and says “I never consented to that sale so it’s void. The transfer to you is cancelled so out you go and good luck getting your money back”. What now? 

Competing rights and a balancing act

There is of course a fine balancing act for courts involved here – on the one hand, the rights of the non-consenting spouse and on the other hand your rights as a good-faith buyer from a seller who you believed to be unmarried.  

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment addressed exactly that situation.

“But I thought I was buying from an unmarried seller”

• A husband married in community of property sold and transferred a house to a buyer in 2009. At the time, his wife was not living in the house, having moved to another part of the country due to old age.
• When the seller passed away in 2013 his wife was appointed executrix of his deceased estate. Some four years later she successfully applied to the High Court for cancellation of the deed of transfer on the basis that the sale had been without her knowledge or consent.
• The buyer appealed to the SCA on the basis that the wife’s consent to the sale should be “deemed” to have been given in that the relevant legislation provides for such deemed consent where a buyer “does not know and cannot reasonably know that the transaction is being entered into contrary to [the requirement for written consent]”. 
• He had, said the buyer, acted bona fide (in good faith) as he had not known of the marriage: “At the time I purchased the property from the deceased/seller, he was staying alone in the said property and he also confirmed to me that he was not married. He signed the deed of sale and also the transfer documents alone as unmarried.”

What the buyer must prove

The buyer had to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that consent was needed but lacking. 

What the Court here needed to decide was whether the buyer should at the time of the sale have known of the marriage and the lack of written consent. “A duty is cast on a party seeking to rely on the deemed consent provision” held the Court “… to make the enquiries that a reasonable person would make in the circumstances as to whether the other contracting party is married, if so, in terms of which marriage regime, whether the consent of the non-contracting spouse is required and, if so, whether it has been given.”

Finding that the buyer had indeed proved (1) that he did not know that the deceased was married and (2) that he could not reasonably have known this, the SCA allowed the appeal and the transfer to the buyer stands on the basis of deemed consent by the spouse. 

The facts of each case will be different, and it is important to bear in mind that in this particular matter the husband’s claim to be unmarried was supported not only by the absence of any sign of a wife but also by two official documents – the deed of transfer and the power of attorney to pass transfer.

The bottom line is that as buyer you must make “reasonable enquiries” as to the seller’s marital status and as to whether the other spouse’s written consent to the sale is needed.

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 matter how much you’ve been warned, Death always comes without knocking” (Margaret Atwood)

No one wants to contemplate their own passing, but the reality is that sooner or later it is inevitable, and particularly in these dangerous times we need always to be prepared.

The loss of a loved one is always distressing. It can however be compounded by the challenge of dealing with their assets. 

Few people appreciate all the costs involved in settling an estate. Understanding these expenses and planning for how to deal with them can make a big difference to those left behind.

Executor’s fees and costs

Every estate must be wound up by an executor. Ensure that in your will you nominate an executor you can trust to act with integrity, professionalism and speed.

An executor can charge a maximum fee of 3.5% plus VAT. That equals 4.025% of the value of the estate. Depending on the size and complexity of your estate this fee may be negotiable. 

The executor will also incur costs such as advertising to find any outstanding creditors, bank charges, accounting fees, conveyancing on the transfer of property and paying the fees due to the Master of the High Court. Together, these could run into tens of thousands of rands.

Taxes and estate duties

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) levies 20% estate duty on the value of any estate, but there is no estate duty payable on an estate with a net value below the R3.5 million abatement (allowable deduction). Any amount above R30 million will be taxed at 25%. An estate worth R40 million will therefore have to pay estate duties of R7.8 million (R5.3 million on the first R30 million, after the R3.5 million abatement, and R2.5 million on the next R10 million).

These taxes will not, however, be paid on any assets left to a surviving spouse. In that case they effectively ‘roll-over’ and will only be charged upon the spouse’s death.

The estate will also have to pay capital gains tax on any assets that are sold. SARS will also conduct a final income tax assessment.

In addition, South Africans need to consider that if they have assets in other parts of the world, they may be liable to pay estate taxes in those countries as well. There are double taxation agreements in place with many countries that prevent most assets from being taxed twice, but where taxes elsewhere are higher than in South Africa, the estate will still have to pay the difference. Inheritance tax in the UK, for instance, is 40%.

Outstanding debt

The estate will have to settle any debt such as credit cards, loans, or bonds on property. Interest on these debts does not stop accruing when someone passes away, so it is best to deal with them as early as possible.

It is most critical to consider how to handle home loans, especially if they are held over a property in which surviving family members are still living. Sometimes these individuals may not qualify to take over the bond due to their own financial position, which means that the house may have to be sold if the debt can’t be settled.

Being prepared – check what cash the estate will have 

Even though an estate may have sufficient assets to meet all of these expenses, it can still be a problem if it doesn’t have enough available cash. That is because the executor may have to sell assets to free up money.

This not only leads to potential extra costs and taxes but can be traumatic if something like a house where a loved one is living or a car that someone needs for transport has to be disposed of. This is why it is important to prepare an estate to make sure that there is enough cash available.

One way of doing this is to take out a life insurance policy that will pay cash into the estate. This will ensure that your family members aren’t left with a potentially major financial burden and face additional stress after your death.

The above is of necessity just a summary of the cost considerations involved, so speak to your attorney about how your will and estate are structured and how you can plan to meet all the costs.

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

“Pyrrhic victory”, n. A very costly victory, wherein the considerable losses outweigh the gain, so as to render the struggle not worth the cost (Wiktionary)

With our economic woes unlikely to abate any time soon, expect an increasing number of your debtors to find themselves in financial difficulty. If you end up litigating against any of them the last thing you will want to do is to throw good money after bad.

And whilst fighting a court case and winning against a recalcitrant debtor is all very well, it’s a hollow victory if by the time you come to enforce your judgment the debtor has no assets left to execute against. You may have won the battle, but you’ll have lost the war. You’ll be left with nothing but a large legal bill and a very sour taste in your mouth.

So what can you do if, during the litigation, you realise that the court case is nothing but a delaying tactic to give the debtor time to dispose of or hide assets? Or perhaps the debtor genuinely thinks it has a valid defence to your claim but decides to get rid of assets just in case it loses. Either way, you risk having no assets left to execute against if you eventually win.

Fortunately our law has an effective remedy for you in the form of an “anti-dissipation interdict” (sometimes referred to as a “Mareva Injunction” which is a similar English remedy). Its effect is to freeze, until your case is finalised, enough of your debtor’s assets to satisfy any judgment in your favour.

A R230m case illustrates what you must prove 

• A plaintiff suing in the High Court for R230m plus interest and costs became aware through media reports of a potential dissipation of the defendant’s assets in the form of a corporate unbundling exercise.
• It obtained an order that the defendant provide security of R430m and when this security was not forthcoming the plaintiff applied for an anti-dissipation interdict. 
• The Court set out what you must prove thus –
  
  • That the defendant “is dissipating assets or hiding assets”. 
  • That “there is reason to believe that such dissipation or hiding of assets is taking place mala fide [in bad faith] with the intention of defeating [your] claims”.
  • In addition you “must satisfy the Court that all the other requirements for the granting of an interim interdict have been established.” These other requirements, as set out in many other cases, are proof of – 
  • A prima facie (“at first view”) right, even if it is subject to some doubt,
  • A reasonable apprehension of irreparable and imminent harm to the right if an interdict is not granted,
  • The balance of convenience must favour the granting of the interdict, and
  • You must have no other remedy.
    
• Finding on the facts that the defendant (a company) was indeed disposing of its assets and would be left as only an empty shell after doing so, and that it was acting in bad faith and “with the view to frustrate the [plaintiff’s] claims and to render its victory in the pending action pyrrhic”, the Court granted the interdict.

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

“If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail” (Benjamin Franklin)

We have all been battered by the economic fallout from the lockdowns. Now more than ever before we should pro-actively take control of and manage our finances through the crisis. A personal financial plan is key here. Without a plan we will drift aimlessly through 2021’s uncharted and perilous waters – a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately putting together a workable plan is not rocket science, and there are many online resources to help. See for example Business Maverick’s article “Your practical 2021 financial year planner” here – a simple and useful guide to tackling your personal finances month-by-month.

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

“Home, Sweet Home” 

2021 is shaping up to be a busy year for both property sales and home builders, thanks in no small measure to the pandemic-induced concept of “work from home, live anywhere”.

If you are one of the many landowners about to invite a team of contractors onto your property to build your new dream home, or holiday house, or perhaps a house-to-let on an investment property, remember to check for full compliance with the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act. It offers you, as the “housing consumer”, significant protection against dishonest contractors and faulty workmanship, plus access to its mediation services should any dispute arise. Your home is probably one of your more significant assets so it will be time well spent. 

On the other side of the coin, any building contractor or property developer not complying with the Act risks both criminal prosecution (with a penalty of up to a R25,000 fine or a year’s jail time) and loss of all rights to claim payment from your client. You could, in other words, lose everything – as a recent High Court judgment shows…

High Court: Builder registration is not enough

For the builder, first step is registration with the NHBRC (National Home Builders Registration Council), but a recent High Court decision confirms that there is also a vital second step – enrolment of the house itself. Note that the NHBRC certificate of enrolment must be issued before construction starts. 

The facts were these –

• A builder (a close corporation) contracted to build five homes for a housing consumer.  The builder had been duly registered with the NHBRC.
• But, as it was involved in a dispute with the NHBRC, the builder did not itself enrol the homes. They were registered under the name of another entity. 
• The builder however carried out the work itself, and in due course it sued the housing consumer for R1.1m.
• The builder lost, the Court holding that because of non-compliance with the registration requirements, it was “not entitled to claim compensation or payment for services rendered.”
• The end result – the builder (both the close corporation and its members) leaves with nothing. Except of course a doubtless substantial legal bill and the risk of prosecution for giving false or misleading information to the NHBRC. 

Before you build…

• Make sure your builder is registered with the NHBRC and get a copy of the registration certificate – check that it is not expired. Go to www.nhbrc.org.za, call the NHBRC on 0800 200 824 or email it at nhbrc@nhbrc.org.za. Note that if you are an “owner builder” you may be exempt.
• You must have the NHBRC “certificate of proof of enrolment” of the house before any construction starts (you will need it anyway to get a bond for new house construction).
• Check that you are dealing with an experienced and reliable builder by asking for at least three recent client references, visit any active building sites to check quality of construction and materials for yourself, check with the NHBRC for the total number of houses enrolled by the builder and for any complaints lodged (check also on online consumer complaint sites for any negative or positive reports).
• Sign a full written contract with the builder, but only after your lawyer has checked it for you. Look for things like timelines, detailed building specs and plans, compliance with NHBRC technical requirements and its Home Building Manual, warranties given, deposits payable, agreed progress payments and the like.
• Make sure that all necessary municipal requirements have been met and that building plans have been approved.
• Keep your neighbours in the loop every step of the way – there is nothing like clear and open communication to nip any unhappiness or problems in the bud!

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

“…it has been suggested that bullying refers to any unfavourable or offensive conduct on the part of a person or persons, which has the effect of creating a hostile workplace environment… In these terms, bullying includes a wide range of insulting, demeaning or intimidating behaviour that lowers their self-esteem or self-confidence of an employee” (quoted in the judgment below)

An employer may be tempted, when an employee resigns, to breathe a sigh of relief and think “great, I got rid of a problem without having to jump through all the hoops of a disciplinary enquiry/retrenchment process”.

Not so fast! One of the protections our law provides to employees is the “constructive dismissal” concept, and every employer and employee should understand what that is, and how it works in practice.

The 3 requirements to establish a constructive dismissal

A recent Labour Court decision sets out the requirements thus –

1. The employee must have terminated the contract of employment,
2. The reason for termination must be that continued employment had become intolerable for the employee (to be determined objectively, the employee bearing the onus of proof), and
3. It was the employer who made continued employment intolerable.

Two special needs teachers resign after workplace bullying

• Two special needs teachers were employed by an independent school, registered with the department of education and catering for learners affected by autism spectrum disorder.
• They resigned on a month’s notice but then asked the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration) to declare that they had been unfairly dismissed.
• The CCMA found on the evidence presented to it by the employees (the employer chose not to attend the hearing nor to lead any evidence) that constructive dismissals had taken place, a finding confirmed by the Labour Court on review.
• The teachers testified to a litany of bullying behaviour by their employer, such as unauthorised/unlawful deductions from their salaries, unreasonable/unlawful demands on them, use of abusive and offensive language when dealing with them, sexual innuendos, sexual harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, the making of disparaging and derogatory remarks, undermining and belittling them, embarrassing and humiliating conduct, and impairment of their constitutional right to dignity – in front of them and/or their work colleagues and/or in public places.
• “In short”, held the Court, “what the evidence discloses is a workplace operated by a narcissistic personality whose offensive and unwelcome conduct had the effect of creating a toxic working environment in which discrimination, degradation and demeaning behaviour became the norm. I have no hesitation in finding that the nature and extent of the workplace bullying suffered by the [employees] was such that for the purposes of [the Labour Relations Act], their continued employment was rendered intolerable.”

• The end result is that the employer must pay the two employees compensation amounting to four/six months’ remuneration respectively (the Court indicating that higher awards would have been considered if applied for on review), plus legal costs on the punitive attorney and client scale.

Two other things to bear in mind in a constructive dismissal claim were addressed in this matter…

The need to “exhaust all internal remedies” first

“Generally speaking”, as the Court put it, “an employee is required to exhaust all possible internal remedies prior to resigning and claiming a constructive dismissal.” Only where the available channels for raising a grievance “are ineffective or where on the facts it would be futile for the employee to resort to a grievance procedure, an employee is not necessarily precluded from claiming constructive dismissal.”

In this particular case, although the two teachers did not follow the grievance procedures set out in their contracts of employment, the Court held that this channel had not been open to them as the “immediate manager/director” to whom they were supposed to direct their grievances was the very person they were complaining about.

As an employee however, the general rule is this – follow whatever internal grievance procedures apply in your workplace or you could lose your claim.

Is “working your notice” inconsistent with constructive dismissal?

The employer argued that the teachers’ willingness to work out their month’s notice periods was “incompatible with any notion of intolerability of future employment”. Not so, held the Court, the teachers were acting “out of their sense of duty towards the learners in their care, and the need for a smooth transition so as to minimise any harm that might be caused to them.”

Employees should however be careful here – without such special circumstances a willingness to work out a notice period could well be taken as proof that your working conditions are not as intolerable as you claim.

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

“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” (wise old adage)

2021 could well be a bumper year for Ponzi schemes (and their equally evil cousins, pyramid schemes). They flourish in all countries and at all times, but with our pandemic-related economic woes and general disruption we will no doubt provide the scamsters with particularly fertile ground this year.

And these schemes just never go away. As soon as one collapses or is shut down, it is immediately replaced by a new one – or more (like the Hydra’s heads, cut off one and two grow back).

Who is at risk?

Everyone! It’s not just pensioners and retrenched employees desperate to recoup their 2020 investment losses. Past schemes have counted some of South Africa’s wealthiest and most savvy citizens as victims, the problem being of course that the con artists who originate them are highly skilled at picking their targets and at creating cover stories to make everything seem legitimate. Perhaps most importantly, they are skilled at the social engineering side of it, building trust and credibility in their target markets with endorsements and “success” stories.

2020’s R9.45bn parting shot at us

There’s often big money involved too. Witness 2020’s parting shot at us in the form of the late-December provisional liquidation of Mirror Trading International (MTI), alleged by its detractors to be a scam (an allegation hotly denied by MTI) and reportedly involving some R9.45bn worth of Bitcoin and some 280,000 investors from all over the world, lured by promised returns of up to 10% per month. At time of writing MTI denies that it runs a Ponzi scheme or indeed that anything is amiss, plus its website is still up, but a flood of media speculation to the contrary no doubt has investors panicking.

See also the recent press reports of the Asset Forfeiture Unit’s seizure of R106m worth of assets (11 chunks of land, 5 aircraft and a motor vehicle) linked to a suspected pyramid scheme.

During the lockdown, another alleged scheme took R42m in deposits from over 230,000 unsuspecting investors.

Stand by for more…and protect yourself and others by knowing the warning signs.

Red flags to watch for

See Sanlam’s Infographic below for a summary of how to spot a Ponzi scheme.

As the infographic suggests, let your watchword be: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”.

Source: Sanlam Employee Benefits.

Another possible indicator of a fraud is a promoter with no physical address – and if you are given a physical address, make sure it is real!

If your proposed investment is presented as being a part of a legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) scheme, it may or may not be genuine – tread very carefully and read “Understanding pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing” here for some pointers.

Warn others (including your staff and the “early birds”)

Please think of passing on this warning, and if you are an employer alert all your staff. These criminals often target workplaces because of the trust factor between fellow employees and colleagues.

Tell everyone not to fall into the trap of thinking that they can be winners by “getting in early”. Statistically, 88% of “investors” lose everything. And, as a number of South African court cases have shown, even the 12% “early bird winners” must, if sued by a liquidator or trustee, cough up not only their “profits” but also their initial stakes.

That’s because a liquidator (“trustee” in the case of a person or a trust) can recover any monies paid out by a liquidated scheme during the 6-month period prior to liquidation, unless the recipient can prove that the disposition was made “in the ordinary course of business” and without intention to prefer one creditor above another.  That’s likely to be impossible to prove with an illegal scheme. Even after 6 months the investor is still at risk, although the onus of proof then shifts to the liquidator.

In other words, even the “early birds” stand to lose everything.

So the bottom line is this – if you are approached by anyone with a “too good to be true” deal, don’t part with a cent until you are 100% sure it is legitimate!

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

A recent High Court decision has been widely viewed as an important victory for the rights of unmarried opposite-sex life partners. Until now, if one such partner died intestate (without making a will), the other could not inherit on the same basis as could a married spouse. Nor could the surviving life partner claim maintenance from the deceased estate (whilst a surviving spouse can claim).

The High Court’s pronouncement that the relevant legislation was unconstitutional and invalid in this regard must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, but it certainly is a clear indication that our courts want to see our laws amended to protect the rights of such couples.

The life partner who will now inherit

• An unmarried 57-year-old man died leaving substantial assets. Both the executor of his deceased estate and the Master of the High Court rejected, primarily on the basis of existing law, his surviving (female) partner’s claim to inherit from the estate.
• She approached the High Court with her claim, and the Court found on the facts that the couple had been “partners in a permanent opposite-sex life partnership, with the same or similar characteristics as a marriage, in which they had undertaken reciprocal duties of support”. 
• The provisions of the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act were, held the Court, unconstitutional to the extent that they excluded opposite-sex permanent life partners from their provisions.
• The practical effect is that the surviving partner will inherit as though she was a spouse.

But, if you are in an opposite-sex life partnership –

1) You should still make a will     

There’s no guarantee that the Constitutional Court will confirm the declaration of invalidity, but more importantly there are very sound reasons for everyone – married or not – to leave behind a valid and properly-drafted will.   

It is quite possibly the most important document you will ever sign. Without a will, you lose your right to choose who inherits what (your spouse for example will get only a “child’s share” on intestacy), you have no say in who will be appointed as the executor of your deceased estate, and you risk exposing your surviving loved ones to the trauma and expense of family dispute and litigation.

In the context of life partners, perhaps you want your surviving partner to inherit everything, or perhaps you don’t. The only way to ensure your desired outcome is to specifically provide for it in your will.

2) You should still have a cohabitation agreement

 An enduring myth in our society is that our law recognises the concept of a “common law marriage”. There is no such thing in South African law and whilst there are some limited statutory protections for life partners, if and when you part ways you could well find yourselves embroiled in a prolonged and bitter dispute. Quite possibly one of you will be left destitute after many years of “living as man and wife”.   

The quick and easy solution is to enter into a cohabitation agreement, it’s the best way to safeguard both of your rights (personal as well as financial). 

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

Whether 2020’s lockdown gave you a great idea for a new business, put you out of a job, or killed your old business, 2021 may well be a year full of new opportunities. If the excitement and rewards of entrepreneurial life appeal to you, have a look at “Starting a Business” on the Small Business Site here for checklists and articles like –

• “#20Lessons20Years”,
• “Small business compliance guide”,
• “Where can I register my company in South Africa”, and so on.

Your first port of call however should always be your lawyer – not only are there important legal requirements to consider before you start up, but you need to choose the right vehicle and structure for your business (sole trader, partnership, company, trust etc) upfront.

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