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

The UFS issues a statement regarding the outcome of recent court case
2014-09-15

A significant number of reports appeared in the media the past week regarding this alleged attack, which happened on the Bloemfontein Campus of the UFS on 17 February 2014.

Although the senior leadership of the UFS is always in favour of good and objective journalism, we find it unfortunate that some of the facts are reported in a misleading and/or inaccurate way by some of the local media.

It is important to us that the true facts are stated. Not only for the sake of those involved, but also for our staff, students, alumni and other important stakeholders.

Here are the facts:

1.    The university was not the complainant. The alleged incident was reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS) by the victim, Muzi Gwebu, and the charges were laid by the State.

2.    At no point did the university management in any of its public statements describe this incident as a case of racism; not once. Charges of racism, then and now, must be proven, not assumed to be true simply because someone alleges racism. That is our standard approach, then and now.

3.    Cobus Muller and Charl Blom were suspended by the university, not expelled – pending the results of the court case. Emotions were running high among members of the student body and, on grounds of the evidence available to the university management at the time, as well as concerns for student and campus safety, they were suspended pending the outcome of a court hearing. This is normal procedure. Suspension does not mean you are guilty; it means you have a case to answer, either according to the university's disciplinary procedures or in the courts. For these reasons the university management will not apologise for the suspension.

4.    The university awaited the outcome of the court case before deciding whether disciplinary action should also be taken against Cobus Muller and Charl Blom. In the light of both the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Regional Court rulings, the university management subsequently decided to lift the suspensions of both Muller and Blom from all campuses of the university with immediate effect.

Muzi Gwebu laid serious charges with the SAPS almost immediately after the incident, and the university management believed, on the evidence then available, that the students had a case to answer.
 
5.    As the Director of Public Prosecutions decides on who will be prosecuted and who not, there are no grounds for the university to pay the legal fees of any of the students in this case.
 
Finally:
The University of the Free State will not be fazed by inaccurate and distorted information, rumour and exaggerations. We are still striving to become a truly excellent university, with a focus on the academic, but also the human development of our students.

Issued by: Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Tel: +27 (0) 51 401 2584 | +27 (0) 83 645 2454
E-mail: news@ufs.ac.za

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