Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 February 2024 | Story VALENTINO NDABA | Photo Stephen Collett
Prof Bradley
Prof Bradley Smith tackles the ambiguities surrounding trust misuse during divorce proceedings.

In his inaugural lecture on 21 February 2024 at the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Bradley Smith explored the complexities of trust misuse in the context of property disputes during divorce proceedings. Prof Smith is an Extraordinary Professor at the UFS Faculty of Law. Drawing on two decades of judicial evolution in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), Prof Smith highlighted the inconsistencies in the SCA’s treatment of this issue that impedes attempts to curb “divorce planning” by way of a trust and proposed solutions to address them.

One of the core issues he identified is the abuse of trusts, where assets are placed within a family trust to diminish a spouse’s personal estate value while treating the trust property as personal property for personal gain. This is often done in an attempt to evade the financial consequences of divorce. Prof Smith explained that this practice undermines the essence of trust law and that the inconsistent approaches by our courts exacerbate the challenges in dividing property during divorce proceedings in a manner that respects the spouses’ matrimonial property regime.

Navigating challenges: reflections on research and its importance

Prof Smith’s proposal revolves around the development of a consolidated test for piercing the veneer of an abused trust, aiming to enhance legal certainty. He emphasised the necessity of a unified approach. “Utilising this test will ensure uniformity because of its applicability to all marriages out of community of property, irrespective of whether the accrual system is involved,” he said.

His meticulous examination of conflicting judgments was praised by Dr Brand Claassen, head of the Department of Private Law, who described it as “the work of a master craftsman”. Retired Judge of Appeal, Eric Leach, also highlighted its critical importance in clarifying complex legal issues for the public good.

“It is of critical importance and in the public interest for judicial decisions, particularly those of higher courts such as the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court, to be subjected to careful and considered analysis and, if needs be, criticism. Prof Smith’s inaugural lecture on combating trust form abuse in the context of matrimonial property claims at divorce, in which he carefully considered and analysed the conflict between several Supreme Court of Appeal judgments, was a valuable and important study on the issue,” said Judge Leach. He added that he hoped Prof Smith’s research would be considered by the SCA in future.

Future directions: advancing discourse and sound legal theory

Looking ahead, Prof Smith envisions further research into the applicability of the consolidated test to marriages in community of property, aiming to address remaining uncertainties that lie at the intersection of matrimonial property and trust law. He emphasised the importance of countering the prevailing “catch-me-if-you-can” attitude in divorce matters, advocating for proactive measures to uphold fairness and justice in matrimonial property disputes.

In conclusion, Prof Smith’s inaugural lecture provided valuable insights into combating trust form abuse within the context of matrimonial property claims at divorce. His proposed solutions and ongoing research efforts signify a commitment to advancing discourse on trust law theory and practice, with the ultimate aim of a sound judicial approach that serves the needs of South African society.

News Archive

Clarification of charges against the Reitz students
2009-10-24

Statement by Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS)

The University of the Free State (UFS) has not “withdrawn charges” against the four Reitz students. This needs to be clarified.

There are three processes underway, and they must not be confused:

  1. 1. The criminal charges against the students were laid by the Directorate of Special Prosecutions in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the criminal courts. That process remains in place.

  2. The human rights charges are led by the Human Rights Commission, in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the equality court. That process remains in place.

  3. The university simply withdrew its own complaint against the students, insofar as university processes are concerned, and on that basis decided to invite the students back to continue their studies and to re-open Reitz as a model of social justice and racial reconciliation as an exemplary university residence. These decisions alone fall within the realm of the university’s authority.

The decision with respect to the withdrawal of the university’s complaint against the students was based on two considerations:

a. the institution’s own accountability for what happened, and creating (or not interrupting) the conditions under which racism and racist attacks were even possible on the campus of an institution of higher learning. It is in this context that the institution has decided to offer reparations for harm to the dignity and esteem of the five workers.

b. the institution’s desire to create the conditions for racial reconciliation on a deeply divided campus, and in doing so to accelerate the chances of transformation at the UFS.

There were broad consultations with the Human Rights Commission, Cosatu provincial, Sasco, Nehawu as representatives of the workers; there were also discussions with the leadership of the Student Representative Council (SRC) about the need to resolve the Reitz issue outside of the courts; and the matter of Reitz and its resolution through negotiation was also raised with the Minister of Higher Education and Training. There were also meetings with the legal representatives of both the students and the provincial prosecuting authority.

There was a meeting with the workers to ensure them of the university’s full support for them as workers, but the case itself was only discussed with their representatives, Nehawu.

Sasco National has communicated a message of support to the university to return the two students and to re-open the Reitz residence.

 

Issued by: Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
19 October 2009

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept