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 failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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