“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” (Mark Twain)

Our Constitution guarantees everyone rights to education, but that doesn’t mean parents can necessarily pick and choose which schools they send their children to. Nor does it mean that they can expect schools to continue educating their children if they don’t pay the agreed fees.

A recent High Court judgment provides a perfect example. 

Breaking the camel’s back – 4 years of arrears totalling R407k

A father’s failure to settle a bill of over R407k in unpaid school fees for his daughter’s education at “an elite private school” in Cape Town has led to him being interdicted from enrolling her there for the 2025 school year.

The school’s patience has clearly run out after years of the father’s failure to stick to a payment plan, negotiated four years ago. The Court characterised his actions as a “modus operandi of non-payment and broken undertakings”. His explanation, that affordability is the issue and that he could not pay the outstanding arrears, cut no ice with the Court. 

The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”, said the Court, was the father’s “flat-out refusal to sign the most recent restructuring agreement, which had been drafted in a last-ditch effort to record in writing the terms of the most recent agreement between the [school] and the [father] so that his daughter could be enrolled at the school for her next academic year.”

The child’s best interests are always paramount

Our courts are the “upper guardians” of all minor children, and this Court was, as always, careful to consider the daughter’s best interests. 

Critically, she is not left without alternative educational opportunities – that would be a breach of her Constitutional rights as well as a violation of the strict warnings from our courts that “schools that provide basic education are under a constitutional duty not to diminish the right to basic education and at all times to act in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) 

In this instance, the school had secured “an alternative good school” for her – a government-subsidised school in the same suburb as her brother’s school. The father’s rejection of this alternative school as being “‘unsuitable’ because [it] is not predominantly white, and this does not align with his daughter’s cultural values” was summarily dismissed by the Court with the terse comment: “The less said about this argument, the better”.

The enrolment contract and the school’s obligations 

This case is an important reminder that we are bound by the agreements we make. The father, in signing his daughter’s enrolment contract, was aware that:

• The school is an independent school, getting virtually no government funding and relying on school fees and donations to fund its operations and to educate its learners.
• Failure to pay fees was a breach of contract which would inevitably lead to the daughter’s exclusion from the school.

Our courts, once again putting the interests of children first, insist that “any decision to suspend or expel a learner during school term must satisfy due process. These include adequate warning prior to suspension or exclusion, provision to make arrangements to settle fees, or the opportunity to make arrangements to enrol a learner at a new school.” (Emphasis added.)

The school in this case had clearly gone “above and beyond” in this regard, and the Court had no hesitation in issuing the interdict with costs payable by the father who must now enrol his daughter in another school – and pay this school its outstanding fees with interest.

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 us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The scariest thing about digital abuse is how a victim can never know how far it went, how many people it reached, and how much those who saw it bought it.” (Psychology Today)

Our laws are always protective of our rights to privacy and dignity, and a recent High Court decision confirms that defamation can be a very costly business for perpetrators.

In serious cases such as those involving “revenge porn” (a term commonly used to describe “the publication of non-consensual intimate images, recordings or depictions”) offenders face criminal prosecution as well as substantial damages claims. As evidenced by a recent High Court default judgment ordering a husband and wife to pay their victim R3.55m in damages. This after they used a fake Facebook profile and other channels to disseminate explicit images and videos of her. 

The married man, his wife, and their victim

The victim (a highly qualified professional woman) was misled by a married man into thinking that he was single. A romantic relationship developed and deepened to the stage where he proposed marriage, and she accepted. We can only imagine her horror when, six months down the line, the man’s wife appeared out of the ether with the shocking disclosure that he was already married – with one child at home and another on the way. 

The victim immediately broke off the relationship, which is when her ordeal began. The husband and wife took turns to attack her, initially with reference to what the husband called “porno videos” – explicit and intimate images and videos which he had recorded without her knowledge or consent. 

The details make for grim reading, but they are important in understanding the Court’s award of substantial damages:

• Firstly, the husband refused to stop seeing his victim. He visited her workplace, ignored her attorney’s letter demanding he stop communicating with her, and threatened to send the videos to her attorney, family and friends. 
• He then created a fake Facebook profile in her name, sent her a video clip to show what he had on her, then invited her friends, family, and professional colleagues to join this fake profile. He went on to publish the videos, threatening to send them to “everyone” if she did not sleep with him. They were unfortunately seen by her friends, family, and strangers before she could get the page taken down. 
• The second perpetrator, the man’s wife, appears to have joined in at this stage, with comments on the victim’s fake Facebook profile “calculated to defame her and depict her as a dishonest, immoral, promiscuous and adulterous person who is a disgrace to her family and profession.” The wife then took her attack directly to the victim’s workplace, barging in to her offices and making highly defamatory, embarrassing, and humiliating communications to her colleagues. An email to the victim’s bosses stated that she was a homewrecker and “was not an asset to the company if she slept with married men.”
• Embarrassed, humiliated and unable to continue working, the victim was so emotionally distressed that she considered suicide. Stress-related medical problems, fear of going out or of forming personal relationships, and fears for her own and her family’s safety led to severe emotional trauma. She remains on medication for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and is also under long term treatment by a psychologist. 

The Court had no hesitation in awarding her both the damages she claimed in full – a precedent-setting R3.55m – and legal costs against the perpetrators on the punitive attorney and client scale.

But that’s not all – criminal liability could loom

The victim in this case had obtained a protection order against her tormentors. A breach of this could expose them to sentences of 5 years’ imprisonment if she decided to pursue the matter. 

The husband and wife could also face serious criminal charges under the Films and Publications Amendment Act, with penalties of up to a R300,000 fine and 4 years’ imprisonment “for knowingly distributing private sexual photographs and films in any medium, including the Internet and social media, without the prior consent of the individual”. Moreover, the Cybercrimes Act criminalises “the disclosure of data messages of intimate images where the intimate image violates or offends the sexual integrity or dignity of the person or amounts to sexual exploitation”. That Act provides for fines and up to 3 years’ imprisonment for offenders. 

None of this does anything to change the victim’s suffering – but knowing that the law is on her side might provide her some solace as she inches towards recovery. 

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 us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Don’t wait to buy land, buy land and wait.” (Will Rogers)

Summer’s a great time to look for property. With the year winding down and the holiday season upon us, many sellers who’ve been holding back are now putting their properties back onto the market, so expect to see some great new buys out there.

But that’s not the only reason…

Blue skies ahead?

The recent interest rate cut, which hopefully heralds more cuts to come, will not only make bond repayments more affordable, but it should also help stimulate our economy generally. If these positive trends hold, the resultant uptick in economic activity, with reduced pressure on consumers and higher earnings for businesses and individuals, should increase demand for property. And that, of course, would see prices move into an upward phase.

So, if you have any thoughts at all of buying a new home or investment property, now could be the perfect time to do it. If you wait too long, prices could really jump.

It is of course essential to go into the process well-prepared. We’re talking about one of your most important long-term investments, after all. So, here’s our checklist.

Your buyer’s checklist

Every buyer and every buying situation will be different, so do bear in mind that this list is just a rough guide to some of the more important factors to consider when looking for a property and/or making an offer.

1.  Location is key

When it comes to real estate, location is one of the most critical factors. You can change a lot about a property, but you can’t change its location. Consider the following:

• Work and schools: Is the property close enough to your place of work and your children’s schools?
• Local amenities: Are there shopping centres, medical facilities and other amenities nearby?
• Safety: Research the crime statistics in the area. How secure is it?
• Growth and resale potential: Historically, have prices risen in line with other areas? Are there any planned developments in the area, such as new roads, malls, or housing estates?

2. Budget wisely

Be clear about your budget before you start looking at properties. Don’t only consider the price of the property but also the additional costs involved:

• Transfer costs: These include transfer duty, conveyancing fees, and other legal costs associated with the purchase.
• Bond registration costs: If you’re taking out a home loan, you’ll need to pay bond registration fees.
• Rates and levies: Investigate the monthly rates you’ll need to pay, plus levies if the property is part of an estate or complex.
• Maintenance: Be realistic about the maintenance costs you may face after purchasing the property. The 1% rule advises setting aside at least 1% of the home’s value every year for upkeep.

Put all those costs, and other items like deposits that need to be paid, into a cash flow forecast so you aren’t caught short at any stage of the process.

3. Beware online fraud!

When it comes to paying the deposit and then, later, the costs and balance of the purchase price, be very aware of the dangers of phishing and fake emails. Don’t pay a cent to anyone without personally phoning them to confirm their banking details!

4. Conduct a thorough inspection

Before making an offer, it’s crucial to inspect the property carefully. Look for any signs of wear and tear that could lead to costly repairs down the line:

• Structural issues: Cracks in the walls can be a warning sign of bigger problems.
• Damp and leaks: Check for signs of damp, especially in bathrooms and kitchens.
• Electrical, plumbing and gas: Ensure that the wiring, gas and plumbing systems are in good working order.

Consider getting a professional inspection done to avoid surprises after the purchase. Pay close attention to the “mandatory disclosure form” that the seller must give you – it should list all known defects, boundary line disputes, building plan issues and the like. Also have a close look at all the compliance certificates that the seller is obliged to obtain – electrical, beetle, gas (if applicable), electric fence (if applicable) and water installation (Cape Town only).

5. Who’s the buyer?

Consider also who is going to be the buyer? You? Your spouse or life partner? Both of you? A trust? Another entity?

6. Buying into a complex?

If you’re buying into a complex, have you checked what rules and regulations you’ll be bound by? What levies you will pay, what special levies may be on the horizon, and whether the scheme’s finances are sound?

7. Beware nasty surprises…

Make sure there are no nasty surprises lurking in the shadows. Like servitudes or restrictions in the title deed, or undisclosed tenants or unlawful occupants on the property.

If you plan to extend or subdivide the property, or to use it for anything other than residential purposes, check both the local zoning regulations and the title deeds for restrictions.

And if that beautiful sea or mountain view is important to you, what will happen if the neighbours suddenly decide to go double or triple storey? Does the zoning allow that? Is it a realistic risk? What about other risks like a busy Airbnb or home business opening up next door?

Ask for a copy of the occupancy certificate and of building plans, and check with the local municipality that all structures are legal and built as per approved plans. Otherwise, your friendly local authority might suddenly be knocking on your door with a not-so-friendly demolition order – as happened in a recent case in the Pietermaritzburg area.

8. Understand the terms of the offer

When you’re ready to make an offer, ensure you understand the terms of the agreement. Pay close attention to:

• Suspensive conditions: These are conditions that must be met before the sale goes through, such as securing a home loan. Check the wording carefully, the “bond clause” in particular is often a source of confusion and dispute.
• Occupational rent: If the seller remains in the property after the sale, you may be entitled to receive occupational rent until you take possession. If, on the other hand, you take possession prior to transfer, you’ll probably have to pay occupational rent to the seller.
• Deposit: Know how much deposit is required and when it must be paid.

9. Get professional help

Since buying property is one of the biggest financial decisions you’ll make, it’s essential to have experienced professionals guiding you through the process – from finding the right property to ensuring all the paperwork is in order.

The bottom line

There is a myriad of important factors at play, and you only get one shot at getting this right. So, before you agree to or sign anything, contact us. Let us help make your property purchase stress-free and rewarding!

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

“That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” (Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet)

Your wedding to-do list will be a long one, and getting all the “boring legal bits” in order before you marry may not seem like a huge priority. But it is. Choices you make now will affect both of you (and your families) forever.

One of those choices is what surname/s you want to adopt in your marriage. We’ll discuss your options below. And although they’re currently available only to women, there’s good news on that front – a recent High Court decision has set the stage for men to be given the same choices as women.

What’s the current position?

In terms of our Births and Deaths Registration Act, as a man you can only change your surname by application to the DHA (the Department of Home Affairs) but as a woman you can automatically:

1. Take your husband’s surname, or
2. Revert to or retain your maiden surname or any other prior surname, or
3. Join your surname with your husband’s as a double-barreled surname.

Those choices are of course a huge improvement on the old default position of wives automatically having to take their husband’s surnames. But there’s still inherent inequality in the law: while women have these choices as of right, a man still has to apply to the DHA for authority to change his surname. Worse still, he must give a “good and sufficient reason” for his application, and the applicable regulations say that in this context your reason “must relate to a change in the marital status of a woman”. These regulations have previously been declared invalid as “ultra vires” (made without authority) but they are very specific in excluding men from the equation.

Two couples challenge the status quo – and win

The groundbreaking High Court decision stems from the resolve of two couples to challenge that remnant of gender inequality:

1. J… and H… (their full names aren’t used in the judgment to respect their privacy) wanted to use J’s birth surname as it symbolized her connection to her parents who died when she was four. H pledged his unwavering support for her stance and wanted her surname to be their family name in which their children would be raised. The DHA agreed that J could retain her surname but said it was unable to allow H to adopt the same name.
2. Jess and Andreas (their names were included in the judgment) decided that, because Jess is an only child whose maiden surname is important to her, they would both combine their surnames into a hyphenated surname. They wanted their names to be the same and to reflect their familial unit. It was only when the time came to complete their marriage certificate that they realised only Jess could go the double-barrel route. The DHA again said they couldn’t do the same for Andreas.

In a joint application, the couples asked the High Court to declare that the relevant sections of the Act and regulations are unconstitutional. Our Constitution states, after all, that the right to equality includes full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms, with the State being prohibited from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone based on, among other things, gender or marital status. They argued that that “the Act has retained an archaic and patriarchal default position that only women are entitled, as of right, to assume a different surname.”

The Court with little ado issued the order of unconstitutionality, giving parliament two years to remedy this and ordering that in the interim men will have the same rights as women to change their surnames and to resume previous surnames on marriage, divorce or the death of a spouse. It also specifically ordered the DHA to amend these two couples’ surnames as requested.

Now it’s over to the Constitutional Court, then on to parliament

The order of unconstitutionality only comes into force as and when confirmed by the Constitutional Court so for now unfortunately your choices remain limited as above.

Whatever you settle on, before making your final decision you might want to ask us about the legal consequences. Then tell the marriage officer upfront what your choice is so that your marriage certificate, marriage register and National Population Register all reflect your married names correctly.

If you need assistance with this, or any other legal aspect of marriage, please contact us. (But please don’t ask us for help with the flowers!)

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 best investment you will ever make are your employees” (Peter Drucker)

As the end of the year approaches, many employees are eagerly awaiting their 13th cheque or year-end bonus. However, not every employer is in a position to pay bonuses, and this can lead to disappointment, disputes, or even legal action if expectations aren’t managed properly.

Read on to find out whether you’re legally required to pay a bonus, and how you can avoid potential conflict.

What does the law say?

There’s a common misconception that South African law obliges employers to pay annual bonuses. This is not true. There’s no automatic legal requirement to pay a 13th cheque or other bonus unless certain conditions apply:

• Employment contracts: If the employee’s contract states that an annual bonus or 13th cheque is part of their remuneration or guaranteed rather than discretionary, you are legally obliged to pay it.
• Company policies or agreements: Bonuses may also be provided for in company policies, collective agreements, or other documents. You need to follow these agreements unless circumstances make it impossible to do so.
• Custom and practice: If your business has consistently paid bonuses in the past, this may have created a “right of expectation.” In such cases, suddenly discontinuing the bonus without prior consultation may be viewed as unfair, and employees could take legal action for unfair labour practices.

How to avoid disputes: Prepare, plan and communicate

You can avoid the common disputes over bonuses by focusing on three essential actions: preparing, planning and communicating.

1. Prepare

• Review all employment contracts and company policies. Ensure these documents are up-to-date and clearly state whether bonuses are discretionary or dependent on conditions such as company performance or employee contributions.
• Be aware of any past practices. If bonuses have been paid regularly in the past, employees will almost certainly assume this will continue, even without it being part of their contract. They could also think that bonuses are an automatic right, and not based on performance. If you’ve paid bonuses in previous years, structure your policies carefully so that paying a bonus in good years doesn’t create enforceable rights (or even unrealistic expectations) in less profitable years. Specific legal advice on this point is crucial to avoid disputes.

2. Plan

• Use cash-flow planning to assess your ability to pay bonuses so you can make informed decisions about whether or not you can afford bonuses, and to give you early warning of any possible challenges.
• When you’ve made your decision, think about how and when to tell your staff about it.

3. Communicate

• Clear and early communication is key to managing employee expectations. If you won’t be paying bonuses this year, or will be reducing the amount, let your employees know well in advance to avoid last-minute disappointment.
• If you are able to pay bonuses, take the opportunity to reinforce the link between performance and reward. Thank everyone for their hard work and contributions to the success of the business.
• Remind staff about the taxman waiting in the wings for his cut. This could come as a nasty shock, particularly if the bonus pushes an employee into a higher tax bracket.
• Open communication and consultation build trust and help maintain morale and productivity, even if the news is disappointing. Employees will appreciate honesty and clarity, especially if you’re facing financial difficulties.

How we can help

If an employee believes they are contractually or customarily entitled to a bonus and you fail to pay it, they may cry “unfair labour practice” and take the matter to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration).

If you’re uncertain about your obligations or if you anticipate disputes, we’re here to help. We can review your employment contracts, assess past practices, and provide guidance on how to manage employee expectations legally and fairly.

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

“Sexual violence is a horrific reality that continues to plague this country.” (Quoted in judgment below)

It’s often said that victims of rape and other types of sexual violence have to suffer twice – firstly at the hands of the rapist and secondly at the hands of the law.

A recent High Court ruling on the knotty question of consent could go some way towards remedying this. At the heart of the matter is the delicate balance between a victim’s right to be treated with dignity and compassion in their quest for justice, and the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.

The consent conundrum

To secure a conviction of sexual violence the State must prove – beyond reasonable doubt – the absence of consent to the accused person’s actions. Unfortunately, major injustices have resulted in the past from the fact that many perpetrators escaped conviction by simply claiming that they believed that consent had in fact been given – without having to show that their belief was in any way reasonable.

Two shocking acquittals

The Court referred to two practical examples of grave injustice rooted in the current wording of the Criminal Laws (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act:

1. A woman had agreed to oral sex only, but her then-boyfriend proceeded to perform full penetrative sex. He claimed that her body language gave tacit consent to penetration and that he misconstrued her request to him to stop as a request to pause momentarily. He was acquitted on the basis that his version was “reasonable and possibly true, although his explanation was improbable”. The complainant had not objectively consented, but the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that his version that he genuinely believed that there was at least tacit consent, was false. The court considered itself bound to acquit “unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false.”
2. In the second case, a woman was raped by a man she met through an online dating site. He had invited her to his home for a “party” at which she turned out to be the only guest. The perpetrator was acquitted on the basis that, although the victim had not objectively consented to the penetration, “she neither physically resisted nor loudly protested. The State did not exclude the possibility that the accused did not hear her say ‘no’ and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was aware that she was not consenting. Put differently, the court accepted that he had subjectively believed that there was consent.”

Enter a welcome new limit to the consent defence

The courts in question had no choice but to acquit given the Act’s present wording, and as the High Court put it: “Currently … an unreasonable belief in the presence of consent is a defence. The State bears the extraordinarily high burden to prove that the accused’s claim that he [it could of course have been a “she”] was under the impression that consent had been given is not reasonably possibly true.”

It accordingly held the relevant sections of the Act to be unconstitutional and invalid and ordered that they be read such that “…it is not a valid defence for that accused person to rely on a subjective belief that the complainant was consenting to the conduct in question, unless the accused took objectively reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant consented to [the] sexual conduct in question.” (Emphasis supplied).

How will our courts interpret this in practice?

Based on the Act’s current wording, our courts have previously held that, “where there was no express rejection of the sexual act … consent has the following requirements: (a) the consent itself must be recognised by law; (b) it must be real consent; and (c) it must be given by a person capable of consent.”

Assuming the Constitutional Court upholds the High Court’s declaration of invalidity, we can only guess how our criminal courts will ultimately interpret whatever new wording it and parliament (which has 18 months to amend the Act) finally settle on. But something like the five-point common sense definition of consent given in Amnesty International’s article “Let’s Talk About Consent” may well form the basis of judicial interpretation down the line.

The article further suggests that “Consent is not about signing a contract! It’s about communication and about making sure all sexual activities happen with mutual consent.” Which seems like a fair and practical way of looking at it.

The bottom line?

One would hope that our courts will ultimately decide that only a genuine, unequivocal, unpressured, informed, specific and un-retracted “Yes” will be enough to escape conviction.

As a final thought, remember that this new law only comes into force if and when the Constitutional Court confirms it.

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

© LawDotNews

“A bad neighbour is a misfortune, as much as a good one is a great blessing.” (Hesiod, 700 BCE)

It seems that every community has at least one nightmare neighbour who delights in objecting to everything, fighting with residents and management at every turn, and becoming abusive and aggressive when they don’t get their way.

What can you do to protect yourself and your family if you live in a residential complex and come under attack from such a neighbour?

Of course, first prize will always be to prevent a long and bitter feud from developing in the first place. But if you’ve tried the “let’s chat about this over a cup of coffee” approach without success, what then?

The case of the abusive neighbour and the protection order

Two residents of a complex ended up in the High Court after a magistrates’ court had issued an interim protection order restraining one resident (a man) from having any contact with another resident (a woman). This after he’d subjected her to verbal and physical abuse, threats, and harassment.

The Court’s judgment doesn’t say where these warring neighbours live. And it provides scant details of their conflict, barring that the victim ended up being physically injured. While these details would have been fascinating, the decision’s importance lies in the Court’s confirmation that our laws do provide complex dwellers with two, and in some cases three, options for protection.

Let’s investigate…

1. The Community Schemes Ombud Service
   
   The CSOS (Community Schemes Ombud Service) has wide powers to arbitrate in disputes concerning complexes and other community schemes. Included in those powers, in respect of “behavioural issues”, is the power to order “that a particular behaviour or default constitutes a nuisance” and requiring “the relevant person to act, or refrain from acting, in a specified way.”

   That’s great in theory but unfortunately the CSOS process is not always as quickly accessible as it should be. So, it’s good news that the High Court in this particular case allowed the victim to pursue a more immediate and direct route to justice using Option 2.

   This is an important outcome, because the golden rule has always been that you are obliged to approach the Ombud Service first in any case where it has jurisdiction. If you don’t, and you decide to go straight to court, you risk being thrown out of court for jumping the gun. But there are exceptions to that rule…

2. The Protection from Harassment Act
   
   The PHA (Protection from Harassment Act) gives you and your family a straightforward and affordable solution, allowing you to apply for a protection order from your local magistrates’ court to force the harasser to stop their unlawful behaviour immediately. The Act is strong in its enforcement, with violators facing arrest and fines or imprisonment of up to five years.

   “Harassment” is defined widely in the PHA as covering any conduct that causes or threatens harm (mental, psychological, physical, or economic) and extending to stalking, cyber-stalking, sexual harassment and physical or electronic communication.

   As this Court put it, “The mischief which the legislature intends to eliminate … is the prevalent violent behaviour in our society and in particular gender-based violence”. The Court certainly considered it relevant that the complainant in this matter is a woman, and her harasser a man.

3. The Domestic Violence Act
   
   If harasser and victim are in a “domestic relationship”, there is a third option that was not mentioned in the judgment as it did not apply in this instance: the protections of the DVA (Domestic Violence Act). These protections are again quick, accessible, and effective, and the definitions of both “domestic relationship” and “domestic violence” are wide.

When are neighbours in a complex limited to Option 1? The High Court has spoken

Now for the crunch. This dispute ended up in the High Court because the magistrate reasoned that the application was prematurely before his court. He said the application should have gone first to the CSOS because the conduct complained of was a “nuisance” which gave the CSOS power to adjudicate the matter.

Not so, held the High Court on appeal. Nothing prevented the magistrate from hearing an application based on the PHA, and the victim had been free to choose either option. In reaching this decision the Court commented that “… the disputes to be dealt with under this [CSOS] Act, are those which concern the well-being of a community scheme as opposed to individuals’ dispute (sic)” – an indication perhaps that our courts will allow a direct approach to a court where “harassment” (as defined) impacts on you personally as an individual rather than solely as a complex resident.

The upshot

It’s back to the magistrates’ court for the duelling neighbours. The magistrate, after hearing both parties and any further evidence, will either make the protection order final, or discharge it.

So, which remedy should you choose?

If your neighbour’s conduct amounts to personal “harassment” or “domestic violence” as well as “nuisance”, you might well have a choice of remedies and should choose whichever is more likely to give you and your family the quickest and most effective protection. If, however, your neighbour’s conduct does not amount to either personal harassment or domestic violence, a first approach to the CSOS will probably be advised as the safer course.

Got a troublesome neighbour? We can help.

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 only person who sticks closer to you in adversity than a friend is a creditor.” (Unknown)

You’ve done everything you can to leave your loved ones financially secure after you die. You’ve left enough assets to set them up in their own lives, made a valid will (“Last Will and Testament”), and chosen a trustworthy and efficient executor to wind up your deceased estate. You think you’d done everything you can to help and safeguard them.

But what if you missed something – something that could be a real gamechanger for your heirs?

Insolvency and attack by creditors

We’re talking here about one or more of your heirs getting themselves into serious debt. It really can happen to anyone. As the out-of-the-blue pandemic lockdowns confirmed, even the most prudent of people can find themselves unexpectedly in the dwang. The danger is that if your heirs’ personal estates are sequestrated, or if their creditors execute against their assets, their inheritances could be attached – and lost to your family forever.

Fret not! There are ways to manage this risk whilst still ensuring that your heirs are looked after. Which route is best for you calls for specific legal advice. But here are the main options:

1. Set up a discretionary trust: You set up a trust to which you leave everything, or just a portion of your estate, or specified assets. This ensures that the inheritance is managed by trustees for the benefit of your heirs, and out of reach of their creditors – if you do it correctly.

   Choosing the right form of trust (the most commonly encountered types being living or “inter-vivos” trusts and will or “testamentary” trusts) needs careful consideration with professional guidance. It’s equally critical to use the best structure for the trust, its assets, and its management.

   Tax and other practical aspects also need careful consideration. In the context of protecting assets from creditors, it’s vital to make the trust a “discretionary” one, because the trustees in a discretionary trust can distribute to beneficiaries at a time of their choosing, rather than the inheritances automatically vesting in your heirs (and being attached).

2. Insert an “insolvency clause” into your will: This one calls for particularly careful drafting by a professional. Our courts have previously held that it is not permissible to simply include a clause or condition that’s intended to prevent creditors from pursuing an heir’s inheritance once that heir “has acquired rights to the inheritance.”

   Rather, the clause needs to create a “gift over” such as a provision stating that if your heir is insolvent at the time of your death, the bequest must accrue to another person. Or perhaps you could allow your executors a discretion to divert the inheritance? Clearly, crafting such a clause to both benefit your heirs and withstand attack from a creditor or the trustee of an insolvent estate requires specialist help.

3. Create a usufruct or fideicommissum over assets: If you want to leave an asset (typically, but not always, immovable property) to your heirs, you could create rights for them under a “usufruct” or “fideicommissum” – technical terms which again require specialist advice and consideration of all the legal, practical and tax angles.

The last option, of course, is to leave it to your heirs to repudiate (reject) their inheritances after you die. That’s not a first prize solution as it requires your heirs to both understand the legal position and to repudiate at exactly the right time.

A will is only as good as its most recent review

There are many good reasons to diarise regular reviews of your will: changing circumstances; new laws and taxes, the list goes on… But we’ve just added another reason. While conducting these reviews, consider whether any of your heirs could be at particular risk of financial distress and if so, how you can manage that risk. Let us know if we can assist!

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

© LawDotNews

“In defence of Madiba’s legacy, we will continue to wage a relentless war on corruption…” (President Cyril Ramaphosa)

You may have seen mention of the new amendment to the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities (POCCA) Act that imposes severe penalties for any failure to report corruption. If you did see it, you quite possibly thought “Doesn’t apply to me, I’m just a small business”.

Wrong! Let’s have a look at who the new law applies to, what it requires of you, the risk you run if you don’t pay it due attention, and how you should manage this new risk.

Who does the new reporting requirement apply to?

Not just big companies and multinational businesses. It applies not only to all members of “incorporated state-owned entities” but also to all persons and entities in the private sector. The definition here is very broad indeed, and it includes all types and sizes of businesses from sole trader up, all types of entity large and small, all companies, every “body of persons” and every “other legal person”.

In short, it applies to you!

What does it require of you?

Simply put, you must report any corruption or attempt at corruption. Of course, we all know what the common-sense definition of “corruption” is. If you need an exhaustive legal definition, we can certainly help you with that.

But in practice just be aware that it applies to any agreement or offer by an “associated” person (including employees, independent contractors and the like) to give anyone else any unlawful “gratification”. What’s more, “gratification” is so widely defined as to include every possible form of monetary or non-monetary advantage (or avoidance of disadvantage) you can think of. Naturally the agreement or offer in question must relate to an attempt to either obtain or retain a business advantage of some sort.

On another warning note, POCCA penalises not just active knowledge of corruption and wrongdoing, but also brings in concepts of “should have known” and “turned a blind eye”.

Put simply, you must report any form of “corruption”. Full stop.

What penalties apply?

In theory, the sky’s the limit here – unlimited fines and life imprisonment! In practice, courts will of course tailor the punishment to fit the crime. The bottom line: there are very clear indications that the authorities mean business, so beware.

How should you protect yourself?

The new law pulls no punches. But fortunately there’s a solid defence included in the new provision: to escape liability you only need to show that you “had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent” the corruption. There’s no definition of what this might entail, so it’s up to you to use common sense based on your particular business and circumstances. Local experts suggest that to be safe we follow the UK’s “Six Principles” – proportionality (procedures tailored to the level of your risk), top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication, and monitoring and review.

Need help with drafting a corruption prevention protocol? Shout if we can help.

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 takes leadership to improve safety.” (Jackie Stewart, Formula 1 legend)

One of your key duties as an employer is to create a working environment in which your employees are protected from harassment and abuse. As a recent High Court judgment graphically illustrates, dropping the ball will cost you dearly.

Meet the protagonists

The cast of characters in this unhappy tale features:

The employer: A private hospital in Bloemfontein, operated by a national healthcare group.

The employee: A Surgical Theatre Manager employed to oversee and manage the hospital’s operating theatres, manage the theatre staff and monitor patient care in the theatres.

The surgeon: Who conducted a private practice at the hospital and performed surgeries in its surgical theatres.

11 years of staggering abuse

To summarise a long saga of woe, the employee endured eleven years of abuse from the surgeon, the highlights (or, more accurately “the lowlights”) being:

• Eleven years (!) of verbal abuse in which the surgeon’s aggressive personality and temper tantrums saw him “hurling profanities, insults, blasphemous language and obscenities at [the theatre manager] while in the presence of other operating theatre staff and even members of the public”.
• The Court summarised the surgeon’s behaviour as “disgusting” – unsurprising given the employee’s evidence that the surgeon had once gone to the extent of flinging a patient’s colon at her, together with a volley of swear words.
• Only her sense of duty, and her pity for the patients (many of them cancer patients in dire need of urgent surgery), caused her to endure the constant abuse, defamatory remarks and insults for so long.
• She submitted numerous complaints to the hospital over the years, both on her own behalf and on behalf of other theatre staff (including several scrub nurses who refused to work with this surgeon), without any appropriate response. Indeed, she testified that the hospital told her that she and the other staff “were not allowed to lay any complaints against a medical doctor”, who was constantly touted as a “money spinner” for the hospital.
• It’s important to note here that, although the surgeon wasn’t a hospital employee under its direct control, the hospital had the right to revoke his “admitting privileges” at the hospital for any reason including “abusive behaviour or harassment”.

The theatre manager sued the hospital for failing to come to her assistance and endured almost eight years of litigation. She eventually accepted an award of R300,000 as damages for the humiliation, degradation, shock, anguish, fear and anxiety she suffered. This included “severe psychological and psychiatric trauma manifesting as post-traumatic stress syndrome and major depressive disorder for which she requires psychotherapy treatment”.

The Court confirmed her damages award of R300,000, together with a large portion of her costs including a portion on the punitive attorney and client scale.

The hospital (eventually) paid up. But what about the surgeon?

If you’re an employee unfortunate enough to fall victim to this sort of abuse you may wonder if you can sue your tormentor directly in addition to suing your employer. The answer is an emphatic yes.

The theatre manager in this matter did sue the surgeon for damages. And while he died before the matter was finalised, she obtained a confidential settlement from his deceased estate.

The bottom line

All of your employees deserve to work in a civilised environment. This can be achieved by having common sense policies in place – and enforcing them uniformly, regardless of the seniority of the staff member, or their value to your business.

No doubt the negative media coverage that accompanied this trial has rubbed a lot of salt into the hospital’s monetary wounds. Their humiliating court defeat was very public, and the reputational damage they suffered surely exceeded the R300,000 they ended up paying the victim.

Actions speak louder than words

Good idea then to learn from the hospital’s mistakes. On the plus side, it had in place detailed policies to underpin its zero-tolerance approach to harassment, together with clear grievance procedures. What went wrong, it seems, was its failure to implement them.

Don’t make the same mistake!

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