ISSN: 2517-9543
Affiliations: Dean: Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University
Source: Juta’s Insurance Law Bulletin, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2026, p. 31
None
ISSN: 2517-9543
Affiliations: Dean: Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University
Source: Juta’s Insurance Law Bulletin, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2026, p. 31
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Discipline Head, Public Law, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Academic Head of Division of Community Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 221-239
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a1
This note examines the acquittal of Peter Gordon Beale in a South African criminal trial involving allegations of murder and fraud arising from paediatric surgical procedures. Through a detailed analysis of judicial reasoning, evidentiary shortcomings and medico-legal frameworks, we explore the complex intersection of clinical judgment, criminal intent and causation in medical harm. We argue that the prosecution’s failure to present structured, context-sensitive expert testimony and to reconstruct clinical decision-making contributed significantly to the court’s finding and Beale’s subsequent acquittal. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence, we propose a set of evidentiary standards and procedural reforms to guide future prosecutions, emphasising the need for independent investigations, blinded expert panels, and admissibility rules that prioritise clinical contexts. Ultimately, we advocate for a balanced accountability framework that protects patients while preserving the integrity of medical practice and that resists the temptation to lower evidentiary standards in response to prosecutorial failures.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Adjunct Academic, University of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 240-250
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a2
In the unreported case of Cassim NO v Bombela Concession Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd ((ZAGPJHC) case no 006216/25 of 16 May 2025), the court analysed and interpreted s 136(2)(b) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, expanding the scope and effect of the cancellation power of the business rescue practitioner. The court adopted a substance test that ultimately allows the business rescue practitioner to cancel obligations in terms of a pre-commencement contract that were amended postcommencement. This unreported case builds on the still-developing legal discourse concerning the cancellation power of the business rescue practitioner, as previously considered in Du Toit v Azari Wind (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 510 (WCC). However, it raises important interpretational concerns, particularly regarding the potential purposive overreach of the court in pursuit of a desired outcome.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Commercial Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 251-282
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a3
This article examines the emerging legal and governance challenges arising from the integration of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) into South African boardrooms. As AI technologies increasingly influence corporate decision-making, they raise complex questions about directors’ fiduciary duties, accountability, and the adequacy of existing legal frameworks. Drawing on the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and the King V Code, this article examines how the adoption of AI intersects with directors’ duties of care and diligence, particularly as reliance on algorithmic tools becomes more prevalent. It critically assesses recent literature that distinguishes between assisted, augmented and autonomous AI, using this framework to analyse varying levels of AI integration and their implications for governance. The article identifies significant regulatory gaps in current soft-law approaches and argues that the King V provisions, while representing meaningful progress, require further refinement to address boardroom-specific risks and accountability concerns. To that end, the article proposes a hybrid regulatory model that combines enhanced principles-based guidance with targeted amendments to company law. This approach aims to balance innovation with legal certainty, ensuring that South Africa’s corporate governance standards evolve in tandem with AI capabilities while preserving the ethical leadership and human accountability central to sound governance.