“… in certain circumstances the principal may be liable to pay commission to both agents where it is impossible to distinguish between the efforts of one agent and another in terms of causality or degrees of causation.” (Extract from judgment below)

With many property sellers allowing multiple estate agencies to market their properties in their attempts to sell during what is still (for the moment at least) a buyer’s market, now is perhaps a good time to remind both sellers and buyers of the double commission danger. 

Consider this scenario – you mandate an agent who introduces a potential buyer to your property, but no acceptable offer results. Later on you bring another agent in, and this time the same buyer makes an acceptable offer. Which agent must you pay commission to – the agent who originally introduced the buyer to the property, or the agent who eventually closed the deal?

In a nutshell, an agent must be the “effective cause” of the sale to be entitled to commission and our law reports are replete with disputes between sellers and agents over who is and who isn’t the effective cause of a particular sale. As the High Court put it a few years ago: “Our Courts have repeatedly acknowledged how difficult it is, when there are competing estate agents, to determine who the effective cause of the sale that eventuates is.”

The big danger for the seller of course is being held liable to pay full commission to two estate agents. The factual disputes that arose in the High Court case in question illustrate…

R1.6m commission claimed

• A property seller engaged agency A to sell the property, and later signed a sole and exclusive mandate with agency B to sell the property by auction. 
• One (unsuccessful) auction later, and after much negotiation and to-ing and fro-ing, the first agency (A) presented an offer from buyer C which the seller accepted.
• Agency B claimed to have been the effective cause of the sale to C and sued the seller for R1.6m in auctioneer’s commission. The seller, at risk of paying (substantial) double commission, resisted vigorously.
• Most of the relevant facts were in dispute, with A and B presenting the Court with substantially different versions of events in virtually every important respect. B’s application was dismissed by the Court on the ground that because of the critical disputes of fact it should have proceeded by way of “action” not “application” – a technical distinction of great interest to the legal fraternity but not relevant here.
• What is highly relevant to sellers, buyers and agents is the ease with which the seller’s decision to engage the services of two agencies led to such bitter disputes of fact and law. 

Sellers, Buyers and Agents: How to protect yourself

Sellers: As always, agree to nothing without legal advice, and insist on formal agency mandates. If you give mandates to multiple agencies, ask them each for a list of the prospective buyers they have introduced, and insist on the buyer indemnifying you against multiple commission claims (necessary because you might not know if your buyer has dealt with more than one agency). You may be advised in some cases to have the various agents give you a similar indemnity.

Buyers: Again, agree to nothing without advice! When viewing a property tell the agent if you have viewed it before with another agent and in particular if the offer/sale agreement you are asked to sign contains any warranties/indemnities, make sure it is safe to agree to them. 

Agents: Don’t put your hard-earned commission at risk – avoid uncertainty and dispute with clear, properly-drawn mandates. Comply also with the EAAB’s Code of Conduct’s requirements on exposing a client to the risk of double commission.

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

“O Wonder! …O Brave New World” (Shakespeare)

Regrettably the pandemic still shows no sign of going away any time soon, and the social distancing it has brought to our “new normal” leaves companies with a dilemma. How can you comply – safely and lawfully – with the Companies Act’s stringent requirements for the holding of Annual General Meetings and (where needed) interim General Meetings?

The good news is that our South African legislation has for many years allowed the holding of company meetings via electronic communication.

The savings in cost, efficiency and convenience have now – courtesy of the lockdown – been experienced first-hand by many a company and its stakeholders, and a Google search reveals a multitude of AGMs held recently via Zoom or similar platforms (there are also several proprietary platforms specializing in shareholder meetings).

The benefits of meeting virtually are such that even after Covid-19 is no more than a bad memory many of us will continue doing so in place of the traditional “face-to-face all in one place” gatherings. 

Expect also an upsurge in hybrid physical/virtual meetings as things get safer.

The formal requirements

1. Comply strictly with all the Companies Act’s requirements in regard to proper notice, conduct and minuting of meetings and decisions.  
2. Observe all the legal requirements set out in ECTA (the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act) in regard to identification of originator, accessibility, storage, retrieval etc. 
3. Shareholder meetings can be conducted entirely by electronic communication unless prohibited by your MOI (Memorandum of Incorporation) but if you want to avoid any uncertainty have your lawyer draw your MOI to clearly allow them.
4. How you hold the virtual meeting is important, the requirement being that “The electronic communication employed ordinarily enables all persons participating in that meeting to communicate concurrently with each other without an intermediary, and to participate reasonably effectively in the meeting.”
5. Notice of the meeting – over and above the normal requirements for notice, “the notice of that meeting must inform shareholders of the availability of that form of participation, and provide any necessary information to enable shareholders or their proxies to access the available medium or means of electronic communication”.
6. It’s then over to shareholders (or their proxies) to arrange their own access at their own expense, although good practice might be to assist with technical and perhaps even financial support where necessary. Any suggestion of an infringement of shareholder rights could come back to haunt you.

Board decisions generally 

Unless your MOI says otherwise, your board can make decisions electronically (without a virtual or physical meeting) if the decision is one “that could be voted on at a meeting of the board of that company”. Decisions can be “adopted by written consent of a majority of the directors” after “each director has received notice of the matter to be decided.” 

Shareholder decisions generally

Shareholders can also vote electronically on resolutions relating to any business not required by the Companies Act or by the MOI to be conducted at an AGM

Public companies

Meetings of public company shareholders “must be reasonably accessible within the Republic for electronic participation by shareholders … irrespective of whether the meeting is held in the Republic or elsewhere”.

Bodies Corporate and Home Owners Associations

Community schemes should take advice on whether in their particular circumstances they can/should postpone their AGMs and/or hold them remotely. Bodies Corporate will need to comply with their Rules and Home Owners Associations with their founding documents (either a Constitution or an MOI).

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

© LawDotNews

“The purpose of the legislature in enacting s 34(1) is to protect creditors by preventing traders who are in financial difficulty from disposing of their business assets to third parties who are not liable for the debts of the business, without due advertisement to all the creditors of the business.” (Extract from judgement below)

With our economy in trouble and the ongoing pandemic and lockdown damaging more and more businesses by the day, sales by distressed companies and traders are likely to rocket. 

If you are a prospective buyer here, be aware of one particular danger lurking in the wings for you. 

Follow this rule to protect yourself – before you buy any business, its goodwill or assets forming part of the business, take legal advice as to whether or not the sale must first be advertised in terms of section 34 the Insolvency Act. You stand to lose both the business and the purchase price if section 34 requires the sale to be advertised and it isn’t.

Your risk is that if an unadvertised sale is challenged by a liquidator/trustee (or by a creditor if there is no liquidation/sequestration) within 6 months of the sale, it is likely to be declared void.  In that event, you will be lucky to get even a portion of your purchase price back – with the seller in financial difficulty your concurrent claim is probably worthless.

As a creditor…

The advertising requirement is designed to protect you as a creditor from having to claim from a debtor which suddenly becomes a worthless shell having quietly sold away its business and/or assets beyond your reach. 

Note that you only have protection if you have instituted proceedings against your debtor “for the purpose of enforcing [your] claim” before the transfer of the business – a good reason not to drag your heels when suing a recalcitrant debtor.

When advertisement isn’t necessary

The sale will only be valid without advertisement if –

• The sale was made “in the ordinary course of business” (unlikely where the business subsequently fails), or 
• It was made for “securing the payment of a debt” (unlikely to be under your control as buyer), or
• The seller wasn’t a “trader”.  As “trader” is widely defined in the Act, and as the onus of proof here is squarely on the buyer, that’s not going to be easily proved. As we shall see below, you can be a “trader” in property as much as in any other commodity.

As a general rule therefore, it is safest to insist on the sale being properly advertised before you pay out the purchase price, but there are grey areas and pitfalls here so take specific advice. Note also that the Act’s requirements for the timing and manner of advertisement are strict and must be followed to the letter.  

As a recent High Court case shows, as a buyer (in this case of a property business) you could lose everything if you lose sight of this very real danger…

An R8m claim and a property transfer (and bond) set aside

• A property owner bought and developed a property firstly into a shopping centre and later into a shopping centre with 11 sectional title units.
• Whilst being sued by a creditor for R8m, the owner sold a section to a buyer and transferred it to him, and a bank registered a bond over the property.
• The creditor obtained judgement against the owner only to find that it had been placed into liquidation. It asked the High Court to set aside the sale on the basis that the sale had not been advertised in terms of section 34 and was therefore void.
• The buyer countered by denying that it was a “trader” as defined in the Insolvency Act. Its core business, it said, was to acquire and then rent out properties, “its business objective was not the buying and selling property per se as its stock in trade”.
• Finding on the facts that the owner was indeed a “trader” when it sold the property to the buyer, the Court set aside the sale, the transfer to the buyer, and the bank’s mortgage bond.

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 is only where the enforcement of a contractual term would be so unfair, unreasonable or unjust so as to be contrary to public policy that a court may refuse to enforce it” (extract from first  judgment below)

Leases often give tenants an option to extend or renew at the end of the current term, and tenants who lose sight of the value and importance of such an option are flirting with disaster. 

Tenants 

In a nutshell, when the time comes to exercise your option do comply fully with the clause’s requirements. Make sure also that you understand and accept the exact wording of the renewal clause before you sign the lease. Drop the ball in either respect, and if your landlord wants you out for whatever reason, you will struggle to convince a court to come to your rescue by forcing an unwilling landlord to renew. 

Four recent court cases – one in the Constitutional Court, two in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and one in the High Court) illustrate, but before we get there here’s a quick note for landlords…

Landlords 

This is of course also highly relevant to you – the last thing you want is for a poorly-worded clause to lumber you with an unwanted tenant, or an unrealistically low rental, or even just with a bitter and expensive legal fight over what the clause actually means. Nor, as we shall see below, do you want to run the risk of a court holding the terms of your lease to be so unfair as to be unenforceable.

First case: Non-compliance v unfairness, Ubuntu and public policy

• As part of a black empowerment initiative, a business hiring out tools and building equipment to builders had set up four of its ex-employees in a franchise operation. The business premises were let to them by the building owner, a trust linked to the hiring business.
• The leases were for 5 years and contained options to renew for a further 5 years, on the giving of notice six months before termination, and subject to the rental for the renewal period being agreed. A mechanism for the agreement of rental was set out in each lease. The franchise agreements were for 10 years, presumably indicating an anticipation of renewal.
• The tenants didn’t exercise their options on time, and when they did try to do so, it wasn’t in the terms required by the lease. 
• When the landlord told two of the tenants to vacate (the others were offered a month to month temporary arrangement), they asked the High Court for an order allowing them to remain. They conceded that on the strict terms of the leases they would have no case but argued that on the basis of fairness and Ubuntu the leases should not be terminated.
• After winning in the High Court but losing on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the tenants took their appeal to the Constitutional Court, explaining “that they were unsophisticated and not versed in the niceties of the law.” 
• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that although Constitutional values such as Ubuntu (which encompasses values of fairness, reasonableness and justice), “form important considerations in the balancing exercise required to determine whether a contractual term, or its enforcement, is contrary to public policy … It is only where the enforcement of a contractual term would be so unfair, unreasonable or unjust so as to be contrary to public policy that a court may refuse to enforce it.” 
• In other words, the highest court in the land has held that if you want to avoid the strict terms of the lease you must show that they are against public policy. You can use constitutional values to do that because those values “underlie and inform the substantive law of contract” but the acid test remains – have you proved that enforcement of the lease’s terms would be contrary to public policy? The tenants in this case had, said the Court, failed to do so. They have 30 days to leave. 

Second case: Renewal clause void for vagueness

For ten years a tenant occupied premises in terms of an original lease and agreed renewals. When it gave notice of a further renewal, the parties were unable to agree on a rental, the renewal clause providing that … “the rental and costs shall be mutually agreed upon in writing between the Landlord and the Tenant when the right of renewal is exercised”.

The landlord applied for eviction and the SCA held that the term was unenforceable, being merely an agreement to agree rather than containing any “legally enforceable obligations”. The renewal clause was void for vagueness and the tenant was given 14 calendar days to vacate. 

Third case: No agreement on rental, too late to call in a third party

A tenant gave notice of renewal, the lease in this case providing that “the rental consideration will be determined by agreement between the parties based on the prevailing market rental’s applicable to the property”, and if they could not agree, a third party would determine it.

The lease, held the SCA, had terminated because the tenant had only tried to invoke the third party clause after the lease had lapsed. The rental must be fixed or agreed for the renewal to be valid.

Fourth case: No notice of renewal and no deadlock breaking mechanism

The tenant in this case failed to give notice of renewal on time, his attempts to negotiate an extension with the landlord failed, and the High Court ordered his eviction. The tenant’s argument that over the years it had become “customary” for the landlord just to remind him about an upcoming expiry and ask him if he wanted to renew was, said the Court, irrelevant because the clause itself was not “definite and complete”. 

The clause provided “that the parties agree in writing to the rental, conditions and provisions of the proposed lease” and even if the tenant had given proper notice of an intention to renew, the parties would still have had to negotiate terms, and there was no “deadlock breaking mechanism” in the lease.

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

Fraudulent SIM swaps were involved in around 13,300 reported digital banking fraud incidents across online and mobile banking and banking apps in 2019 (up 16% from 2018) and all indications is that the lockdown will see another spike in incidents.

Read “What to do if you are a victim of SIM-swap fraud” on My Broadband for advice on the dangers, how to protect yourself from becoming a victim, how to tell if you are under attack, and what to do about it if it happens.

Stay safe out there!

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

“Ninety percent of all millionaires become so through owning real estate. More money has been made in real estate than in all industrial investments combined. The wise young man or wage earner of today invests his money in real estate” (Andrew Carnegie, billionaire industrialist)

Dollar billionaire Andrew Carnegie said it a century ago, and it still rings true – wise property investment can be hard to beat when it comes to accumulating wealth. The exciting opportunity for buyers at the moment is of course the more attainable sale prices and the lower interest rates resulting from the pandemic and the lockdown. It is, by all accounts, still very much a buyer’s market.

On the other side of the coin, sellers and estate agents are no doubt heartened by recent signs that the first green shoots of a recovery are in the offing, and so the time is ripe for a reminder that, in terms of the Estate Agency Affairs Act (“the Act”) only agents with a valid and current Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) can operate and earn commission. 

The challenge for agents is that when it comes to the issue of FFCs, they are at the mercy of the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB), which has reportedly struggled in the past to issue certificates efficiently and on time. This problem will presumably be exacerbated by the ongoing lockdown restrictions and the risk of precautionary office evacuations. 

However there is some good news for agents (not such good news perhaps for those sellers or landlords hoping to save on commission!) in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment…

No FFC, but not the agent’s fault 

• Two estate agencies (“S” and “A”) jointly brokered a lease agreement, but when S asked for its 50% share A refused, partially on the basis that S had no valid FFC at the time the commission was earned.
• In fact S had done everything necessary to apply for its annual FFC, which was issued by the EAAB on 1 January 2018 in the wrong name (S had converted from a close corporation to a company). The EAAB acknowledged its error and in May 2018 issued a correct FFC to S, backdated to 1 January. 
• However the High Court dismissed S’s commission claim, holding that mere entitlement to an FFC is not enough – a valid FFC must have been actually issued at the time the commission was earned.
• S appealed to the SCA, which reversed that finding and awarded S its 50%. The Court held that the Act’s strict and peremptory requirement for a FFC had to be interpreted in light of both Constitutional considerations and consistency “with what the Act seeks to achieve”.
• On that basis, and commenting that “But for the error on the part of the Board, [S] was entitled to, and would have been issued with, a valid fidelity fund certificate for the period 1 January-31 December 2018” and that “the fault lies squarely and solely with the Board”, the Court concluded that “the estate agents were rightly considered to have been in possession of a certificate”. S is therefore entitled to its commission.

Agents – don’t lose your commission!

The Court was however at pains to point out that the particular facts of this case were “in a narrow compass” and it is clear that the general rule remains – hold a valid and current FFC or almost certainly forfeit your commission. Do not even try to rely on an EAAB mistake unless you have complied strictly with all the formalities for a certificate and can prove that you are entitled to one.

And as the Court put it, if something does go wrong with the issue of your FFC “…estate agents should not adopt a supine attitude in the face of the Board’s errors. They should do what is reasonably within their power to have the situation rectified. In the meantime their compliance with the requirements should be a primary factor in the determination of disputes that arise before the error is rectified” (emphasis supplied).

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 must be asked whether, but for the Covid-19 outbreak, the interruption or interference to the Applicant’s business would have occurred when the Lockdown Regulations were promulgated” (extract from the judgment below)

It’s no surprise that our media has been awash with reports on the recent High Court judgment around a restaurant’s business interruption cover claims.

The restaurant in question, like many other businesses of all types and sizes, has been suffering severe losses from being forced to close (and latterly trade under very limited conditions) during the lockdown. Its business interruption claim in terms of an “Infectious Diseases Extension” clause in its policy (which it had faithfully been renewing annually since 2007) was rejected by the insurers.

What caused your business losses? The two things you must prove…

Sued by the restaurant, the insurers raised a whole slew of defences to the claim, all of them ultimately rejected by the Court.

Of most interest to businesses holding this type of cover will be the central question of whether or not the wording of your particular policy, in particular any “notifiable disease extension” clause (which in this case was a no-premium, “free cover” extension) will cover you for losses sustained in the particular circumstances of this pandemic and the lockdown. 

The clause in this particular case promised cover for ”interruption or interference with the business due to (e) notifiable disease occurring within a radius of 50 km of the premises…”. 

The insurer argued that this covered only losses resulting from business interruption “where the interruption is due to the Notifiable disease and not losses as a result of other causes” and that in this case business was interrupted not by the Covid-19 outbreak but rather by the lockdown “which is not insured under the Policy.”  It also argued that “there was no sufficient causal link between the Covid-19 outbreak and the [restaurant]’s eventual loss.” The restaurant, it said, could have taken out other policies to specifically cover it in these circumstances but it chose not to do so. 

In a nutshell, the Court found that the restaurant had to show two things –

1. “The Covid-19 as a Notifiable disease, caused or materially contributed to the “Lockdown Regulations” that gave rise to the Applicant’s claim (this is a factual enquiry). If it did not, then no legal liability can arise…”
2. “If it did, then the second question becomes relevant, namely whether the conduct is linked to the harm sufficiently closely or directly for legal liability to ensue, or whether the harm is too remote from the conduct”.

Finding that the restaurant had indeed proved causation as above, the Court declared that it was covered for such of its losses as it “is able to calculate and quantify from time to time”.

So are you covered?

The insurers have said they are taking this matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (the insurance industry as a whole of course faces substantial losses from these claims), but remember that your particular policy may anyway be worded so as to cover you. There are also media reports of similar claims being met by some insurers, and of interim relief being offered by others. As the Court in this case put it “each case must be decided upon its own facts and the law”.

Moreover the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) says that “The National Lockdown cannot be used by any insurer as grounds to reject a claim” and that “policyholders are able to claim in instances where they can show that they have satisfied the requirements of their specific policy, whether it was before, during or after the national lockdown”. You can complain to the FSCA if you feel that you have been treated unfairly.

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

Breaking any of our lockdown laws can be an expensive business, risking heavy penalties. 

If you are accused of a contravention and offered the option of paying an “admission of guilt” fine to avoid a court appearance, beware! It may seem like the easy way out to pay up and put the whole thing behind you but it could land you with a criminal record. 

You really don’t want to have a criminal record!

Having a criminal record comes with serious and lifelong negative consequences. Even an old and long-forgotten minor offence can hang around in the background until it suddenly pops up at the worst possible times – such as when you apply for a travel visa or a new job. 

When are you most at risk? 

The general rule is that you will acquire a criminal record if you are arrested, if the police open a docket and take fingerprints, and if you are thereafter convicted of a crime. 

The problem with admission of guilt fines is that they may well leave you with a “deemed” conviction and sentence which will end up in the CRC (SAPS Criminal Record Centre) database. Although there was talk in the past of the CRC capturing convictions with just your name and I.D. number the main risk seems to still be in having your fingerprints taken.

It’s not easy to get rid of a criminal record

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

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 quick 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 and not yet in the pipeline.

The bottom line – if you are offered the option of paying an admission of guilt fine, ask for advice before you accept!

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

“…every landowner has a right to the lateral support and where subsidence or other destabilisation occurs, as a result of excavations on an adjacent property, the owner of the adjacent property will be liable in an action for damages irrespective of whether she was negligent or not.” (Extract from judgment below)

It’s every homeowner’s nightmare – your property starts subsiding and as the tell-tale cracks in the living room widen alarmingly, it begins to dawn on you that your whole house is at risk of collapse. 

The cause must, you decide, be your neighbour’s excavations for a new house/garage/swimming pool. You approach said neighbour for a friendly chat and a request to do something about it urgently. “Sorry” replies your neighbour, “not my fault, I am building exactly according to approved plans so it’s your problem.” 

So where do you stand legally?

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision has broken new ground (weak pun intended!) in our law here, and all property buyers, sellers and owners would do well to take note.

A slope subsides and a neighbour sues

• This long-running dispute between neighbours dates from 2008 and concerns the owners of two properties on a steeply sloping mountainside, one above the other.
• The house on the upper property was built in 1994. Fourteen years later in 2008 the owner of the lower property started extensive excavations in preparation for construction of her new house.
• The upper owner very soon noticed problems, with his garden and outside walls showing clear signs of subsidence. Eventually there was a major movement in the underlying ground and the entire slope subsided. The upper owner’s property moved laterally and downwards towards the excavation resulting in extensive structural damage to the property. It was clearly a major event, with another neighbour having to abandon his property entirely because of safety concerns.
• The upper owner sued the lower owner for damages, and after a long fight through the courts the matter ended up with the SCA which upheld the damages claim by the upper owner.

The duty of “lateral support” 

The Court addressed several important questions, all of them vitally important to any property owner or prospective property owner –

• Does the duty of support cover buildings, or just land “in its natural state”? Our law has long recognised a neighbour’s duty to provide physical lateral support for adjoining properties, but until now it has been unclear whether that applies only to land “in its natural state”, or whether it extends also to developed land with “artificial” structures on it. It’s an important question – few urban properties would be covered if the duty applies only to undeveloped land.
  
  The SCA’s final word – the duty of support applies to both land in its natural state and to “improved” and developed land (i.e. your house and other structures are covered).
  
  As an important side note here, the Court referred to both the fact that “in our neighbour law, fairness and equity are important considerations”, and to the fact that “in our constitutional context, the principle of lateral support must find expression in the constitutional value of Ubuntu, which ‘carries in it the ideas of humaneness, social justice and fairness’” (Emphasis supplied). Sticking to the ‘letter of the law’ may no longer be enough when dealing with your neighbours!
  
  Which leads us to another important thought – take legal advice immediately you realise your property is in danger. You may well be advised to urgently apply for an interdict to stop the excavations or other building work from continuing.
• Did the excavations breach that duty? The Court was faced with competing evidence from two geo-technical experts who were agreed that there was a slope failure which caused ground movement on the affected properties, but differed on the cause and mechanism of the slope failure. In the end the Court held that “the exact mechanism which caused the removal of lateral support is unimportant” and that the claimant “succeeded in establishing that the slope mobilisation had resulted from a breach of the duty to provide lateral support due to the excavation on the first appellant’s property”.
• Did the excavations cause the loss? On an analysis of the evidence the Court determined that the claimant had established both factual causation (“whether the relevant conduct caused or materially contributed to the harm giving rise to the claim”) and legal causation (“whether the conduct is linked to the harm sufficiently closely or directly for legal liability to ensue, or stated differently, whether the harm is too remote from the conduct.”).
  
• Is negligence necessary? Normally to establish a damages claim you must prove that the person who caused your loss acted both wrongfully and negligently (or deliberately). Not so, said the Court, “the right of support is a natural right of ownership” and in subsidence cases “it is unnecessary to prove an unlawful act or negligence; the cause of action is simply damage following upon deprivation of lateral support.” 

That last finding of course means that landowners are “strictly liable” – something to bear in mind before you buy or develop any property where subsidence could possibly be an issue.

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

Our law (in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act) encourages employees to disclose unlawful or irregular conduct in their workplaces without fear of reprisal. 

Why encourage it?

“3 Reasons Why Whistleblowing is Important for Public and Private Companies” on the Compliance Line website here suggests that employers should actively encourage their employees to “whistleblow” because –

1. “The majority of fraud is captured through Whistleblowing”. It should be one of your frontline protections against financial loss from criminal activity.
2. “Whistleblowers are often close to the action and have the most important information”.
3. “Whistleblowing helps align people so the organization can pursue its vision and mission”. You are in essence protecting your business from two serious risks – reputational damage and the negative consequences of corporate non-compliance.

Lockdown has subjected businesses and their employees to unusually high levels of stress – financially and generally. That is bound to expose companies to new and greater risks of unlawful conduct and loss, and with that comes an increased need to protect yourself and your business from those risks.

And how to encourage it?

“How to make whistleblowing work” on the Good Corporation’s website brings together multiple suggestions on how to create a successful whistleblowing system, whilst a whistleblowing platform like Code Red (“designed in accordance with the King IV code on corporate governance which encourages ethical business leadership and organizational culture”) or Whistle Blowers makes it easy to encourage effective and anonymous online reporting.

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