ISSN: 1996-2207
Affiliations: CEO of FEDSAS
Source: Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, Issue 1, 2023, p. 171-172
https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2023/i1a11
None
ISSN: 1996-2207
Affiliations: University of the Witwatersrand
Source: Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, Issue 1, 2023, p. 173
https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2023/i1a12
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor, Department of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 4, p. 741-756
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a1
This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director. This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted some aspects of s 71 of the Act.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor of Law, University of Johannesburg; Associate Professor of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 4, p. 757-767
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a2
In the realm of taxation, the South African Revenue Service has the power to set aside (or alter) certain transactions to curb impermissible tax avoidance or to give effect to the substance of a transaction over its form. Equally, in the insolvency realm, the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 provides for certain instances where a transaction can be set aside if it falls within the ambit of impeachable dispositions. In this note, we consider the intersection between insolvency and tax avoidance with specific reference to the overlap between voidable preferences and impermissible tax avoidance arrangements, on the one hand, and substance over form and dispositions not made for value, on the other hand. This analysis highlights the significance of the timeline of events. We argue that SARS would only be able to benefit from both the avoidance mechanism and the setting side of the impeachable disposition when the tax avoidance remedy precedes the sequestration or liquidation order and the subsequent setting aside of the impeachable disposition.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Research Associate, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 4, p. 768-790
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a3
In Wilsnach NO v TM 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP) the court radically reinterpreted the meaning of the term ‘parent’ for the purposes of intestate succession, thereby excluding an unmarried father from inheriting from his deceased child as a ‘parent’, and permitting the child’s grandmother to inherit as if she were the child’s ‘parent’. The court achieved this outcome by finding that the provisions of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 must inform our understanding of who a ‘parent’ is for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The note critically evaluates this judgment in the light of the historical development of the rules of intestate succession and the history of the legislation, identifies problematic issues arising from the judgment, and suggests an alternative way in which the father’s perceived unsuitability as an heir may have been achieved.