scholarly journals ONCE AGAIN IUSTUS ERROR AND SURETYSHIPS Absa Bank Ltd v Trzebiatowsky 2012 (5) SA 134 (ECP)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C-J Pretorius
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Potential Abuse ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In Absa Bank Ltd v Trzebiatowsky (2012 (5) SA 134 (ECP)) the court was faced with a defence that has become all too common within the context of suretyship agreements, namely that of iustus error, or rather material and reasonable mistake rendering the contract void. Traditionally the courts have been wary of releasing a signatory of a contractual document from liability in the absence of some form of misrepresentation on the part of the contract assertor, but in Brink v Humphries & Jewell (Pty) Ltd (2005 (2) SA 419 (SCA)) the Supreme Court of Appeal adopted a far more lenient approach, one which opened the door for potential abuse of this defence, especially it seems so where suretyships are involved. The Trzebiatowsky decision is relevant for confirming the more traditional approach as opposed to the one largely ushered in by Brink and for sensibly reflecting the issues relevant to adjudicating these cases.

scholarly journals Corporate Tax Planning: GAAR: An Economic Test?—The Courts Divide

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 351-390
Author(s):  
Brian R. Carr ◽  
Brittany Finn ◽  
Ryan Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Inherent Difficulty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Compare And Contrast ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The authors of this article review the history and development of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), for the purpose of assisting in the analysis of recent decisions of the federal and provincial courts of appeal. They discuss the inherent difficulty in construing section 245 and outline various tests that the courts could have employed to interpret its provisions. The authors then review three of the four decisions in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted GAAR—<i>Canada Trustco</i>, <i>Mathew</i>, and <i>Copthorne</i>. With that background, the authors contrast the different approaches to the provincial general anti-avoidance rules taken, on the one hand, by the Alberta Court of Appeal in <i>Husky Energy</i> and <i>Canada Safeway</i>, the Ontario Court of Appeal in <i>Inter-Leasing</i>, and the BC Court of Appeal in <i>Veracity</i>, and, on the other hand, by the Quebec Court of Appeal in <i>OGT</i> <i>Holdings</i> and <i>Iberville</i>. They then compare and contrast those approaches with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada on how GAAR should be interpreted. The authors also discuss the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in four recent GAAR decisions—<i>Univar</i>, <i>Oxford Properties</i>, <i>594710 British Columbia Ltd.</i>, and <i>Birchcliff</i>. They compare and contrast that approach with the approaches of the provincial courts, and consider whether the Federal Court of Appeal's approach is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's pronouncements on GAAR. Finally, the authors offer some advice for tax planners based on the recent GAAR decisions of the various courts of appeal.

scholarly journals COMPROMISE, UNDUE INFLUENCE AND ECONOMIC DURESS Gerolomou Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk 2011 (4) SA 500 (GNP)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
CJ Pretorius ◽  
R Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The Other ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Sound Judgment

The matter of Gerolomou Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk (2011 (4) SA 500 (GNP)) alludes to two rather problematic aspects of the law of contract: on the one hand it demonstrates that practically speaking the question of what constitutes an enforceable agreement of compromise is still no easy matter, and despite the sound judgment delivered recently by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Be Bop A Lula Manufacturing & Printing CC v Kingtex Marketing (Pty) Ltd (2008 (3) SA 327 (SCA)), it seems that the judiciary’s interpretation as to when an offer of compromise exists remains difficult to predict. On the other hand the Gerolomou decision deals with improperly obtained consensus by way of undue influence, whereas the facts actually fit more comfortably into the niche of so-called economic duress, a form of procedural impropriety that has yet to be recognized as an independent ground for setting aside a contract in our law. This case note examines these issues against the backdrop of the manner in which the case was pleaded.

scholarly journals Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples: Impacts on the Petroleum Industry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Fogarassy ◽  
KayLynn Litton
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The duties of consultation and accommodation with Aboriginal peoples affected by resource development were, until 2002, primarily the responsibility of the Crown. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in two related decisions involving the Haida Nation on the one hand and the Crown and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited on the other, has placed these duties squarely on to the shoulders of industry. Where the Crown fails to discharge its duties of consultation and accommodation, resource tenures such as permits, licenses or leases may be invalid and activity conducted pursuant to the tenures may result in damages awarded against industry in favour of affected Aboriginal peoples. Appeals from both decisions will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, the law on industry’s duty to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal peoples continues to lack certainty.

A Note on Mandela v Executors, Estate Nelson Mandela 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) and the Conundrum around the Customary Marriage between Nelson and Winnie Mandela

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipho Stephen Nkosi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
High Court ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The note is about the appeal lodged by the late Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to the SCA against the decision of the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha, dismissing her application for review in 2014. In that application, she sought to have reviewed the decision of the Minister of Land Affairs, to transfer the now extended and renovated Qunu property to Mr Mandela and to register it in his name. Because her application was out of time, she also applied for condonation of her delay in making the application. The court a quo dismissed both applications with costs, holding that there had been an undue delay on her part. Mrs Mandela then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, for special leave to appeal the decision of the court a quo. Two questions fell for decision by the SCA: whether there was an unreasonable and undue delay on Mrs Mandela’s part in instituting review proceedings; and whether the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The SCA held that there was indeed an unreasonable delay (of seventeen years). Shongwe AP (with Swain, Mathopo JJA, Mokgothloa and Rodgers AJJA concurring) held that the fact that there had been an undue delay does not necessarily mean that an order for costs should, of necessity, particularly where, as in this case, the other litigant is the state. It is the writer’s view that two other ancillary points needed to be raised by counsel and pronounced on by the Court: (a) the lawfulness and regularity of the transfer of the Qunu property to Mr Mandela; and (b) Mrs Mandela’s status as a customary-law widow—in relation to Mr Mandela.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

scholarly journals Insurance related problems in bareboat charter agreements

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albano Gilabert Gascón
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn 2017, the majority of the United Kingdom Supreme Court held in its judgment in the Gard Marine and Energy v China National Chartering (The Ocean Victory) case that, in bareboat charters under the ‘BARECON 89’ form, if both the owner and the charterer are jointly insured under a hull policy, the damages caused to the vessel by the charterer cannot be claimed by the insurer by way of subrogation after indemnifying the owner. The interpretation of the charter party leads to the conclusion that the liability between the parties is excluded. Faced with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) adopted a new standard bareboat charter agreement only a few months later, the ‘BARECON 2017’ form, which amends, among other clauses, the one related to insurance. The present paper analyses (i) the new wording of the clause mentioned above and (ii) its incidence on the relationship between the parties of both the charter agreement and the insurance contract and its consequences for possible third parties. Despite BIMCO’s attempt to change the solution adopted by the Supreme Court and his willingness to allow the insurer to claim in subrogation against the person who causes the loss, the consequences, as it will be seen, do not differ much in practice when the wrongdoer is the co-insured charterer. On the contrary, when the loss is caused by a time charter or a sub-charter, in principle, there will be no impediment for the insurer to sue him.

scholarly journals Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Migrant Families ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Discourse ◽  
Major Shift ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Irregular Migrant ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy. This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.

Transforming the Law on Psychiatric Lesions

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-271
Author(s):  
Emile Zitzke
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychological Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Law Of Delict ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Made In

In this article, I trace the development in the law of delict of recognising general damages claims on account of psychiatric lesions with the aim of making suggestions on how to transform it. Using the tragic case of Michael Komape as a springboard for the discussion, I argue that even though the Supreme Court of Appeal has recently brought clarity on the law on psychiatric lesions, more transformative work still needs to be done. More specifically, this article contends that the constitutional right to bodily and psychological integrity might require us to rethink the high evidentiary threshold that courts have set for proving the element of harm in cases related to psychiatric lesions. I argue that this can be done in at least three ways: First, by very cautiously bringing about a development that would involve protecting victims of psychological harm whose expert witnesses are shown to be inadequate despite all other facts indicating the existence of a psychiatric lesion. Secondly, by lowering the requirement of “recognised psychiatric lesion” to “grievous mental injury”, in line with similar arguments made in England. Thirdly, and most controversially, by acknowledging that perhaps the time has come for our law to recognise claims for so-called “grief in the air”.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document