Affording post-relationship rights to unmarried intimate life partners in South Africa — A comparative analysis of the legal position

Affording post-relationship rights to unmarried intimate life partners in South Africa — A comparative analysis of the legal position

Authors: Brigitte Clark & Belinda van Heerden

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Honorary Visiting Researcher, Oxford Brookes University; Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 3, p. 611-646
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i3a8

Abstract

Unmarried cohabitation has become an international phenomenon. A wide diversity of legislative and judicial approaches to cohabitation exist in different jurisdictions, and there are divergent views on whether to protect either the traditional family or vulnerable partners. This debate appears to be central to how to protect vulnerable parties: countries adopt either a contractual laissez-faire approach based on the protection of marriage or a default status-based legislative cohabitation regime. After analysing the international situation, we address the need for South African law to protect life partners or those in religious marriages not yet recognised by law when the relationship is terminated by death or separation. We note that in South Africa, the choice to marry or cohabit permanently is often illusory in the context of the lives of many vulnerable partners. Recent case law has highlighted the need to encourage Parliament to pass legislation to protect such relationships. The South African Law Reform Commission has produced a Discussion Paper which inter alia provides for the recognition of certain life partnerships but still excludes myriad relationships requiring protection in this country. We argue that South African family law urgently needs to draft legislation on these relationships to reflect the lives of many vulnerable South Africans.

Workplace bullying in the legal profession

Workplace bullying in the legal profession

Authors: Michele van Eck & Marthinus van Staden

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Johannesburg; Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 3, p. 647-677
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i3a9

Abstract

The International Bar Association (‘IBA’) highlighted a disturbing trend of bullying within the legal profession in its 2019 report on bullying and sexual harassment in the legal profession, both internationally and in South Africa. The substantive forms of bullying (often described as victimisation, discrimination, or harassment) may overlap in the manner, mode or way in which bullying is perpetrated, and how bullying occurs may be grouped into several distinct categories: overt (or direct) forms, covert (or indirect) forms and, finally, so-called ‘mobbing’. This article investigates the current South African legislative framework addressing workplace bullying, including the indirect remedies available to victims in terms of (i) a claim of harassment as a form of unfair discrimination under s 6(3) of the Employment Equity Act; (ii) a claim for constructive dismissal under s 193 of the Labour Relations Act; and (iii) unfair labour practices as a remedy for workplace bullying or a claim of harassment in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act. After finding that these indirect remedies are inadequate to address workplace bullying in the legal profession, the article explores the conduct rules of the legal profession to establish how bullying is addressed in the legal sector and conducts a comparative analysis of the way in which bullying is addressed in the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions to identify possible solutions to curb the scourge of workplace bullying in the South African legal profession.

Dolus eventualis: An endangered colonial species

Dolus eventualis: An endangered colonial species

Author: Tshepo Bogosi Mosaka

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Public Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 2, p. 239-262
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i2a1

Abstract

This article focuses on the feasibility of dolus eventualis in addressing the problem of intended endangerments — that is, the question as to how the secondary consequences flowing from an act of endangerment, as distinguishable from an attack, can be said to be ‘intended’ (dolus). This problem manifests typically in the form of the orthodox marketplace bomb-thrower who has one primary aim but whose actions result in several other secondary consequences, some of which may not have been aimed or foreseen in any primary sense. After discussing why the two historical solutions — strict liability and the versari doctrine — are not viable answers to this problem, the remainder of the article examines the feasiblity of dolus eventualis as a third contemporary solution. This examination focuses on both the historical contradictions as well as the prevailing doctrinal controversies that are associated with dolus eventualis. The fourth part of the article reflects on five uncontroverted problems that currently beset dolus eventualis. The article concludes on a sceptical note: that dolus eventualis may not survive the many difficulties discussed in this article, and that exploring the expansion of negligence or the creation of a separate and new third form of fault may not be a bad idea.

The appealability of decisions to certify class actions: Where are we now? A proposed approach after Stellenbosch University Law Clinic v Lifestyle Direct Group International (Pty) Ltd (WCC)

The appealability of decisions to certify class actions: Where are we now? A proposed approach after Stellenbosch University Law Clinic v Lifestyle Direct Group International (Pty) Ltd (WCC)

Author: Theo Broodryk

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor of Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 2, p. 263-284
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i2a2

Abstract

Decisions refusing to certify class proceedings are appealable. The position regarding the appealability of decisions certifying class actions is, however, less clear. Regrettably, in Stellenbosch University Law Clinic v Lifestyle Direct Group International (Pty) Ltd [2021] JOL 51475 (WCC), the court did not give a final ruling on whether a decision to certify a class action is appealable. Gamble J merely assumed, without deciding, that his decision in Stellenbosch University Law Clinic v Lifestyle Direct Group International (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 237 (WCC) to certify the class action was appealable. This article aims to clarify the preferred approach when deciding whether to permit an appeal against a decision to certify a class action.