What are the duties (if any) of retirement funds boards which are requested by employers to withhold members’ retirement benefits?

What are the duties (if any) of retirement funds boards which are requested by employers to withhold members’ retirement benefits?

Author: Clement Marumoagae

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg; Visiting Associate Professor, National University of Lesotho
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 818-843
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a7

Abstract

This article evaluates an extraordinary remedy created by the legislature in s 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956. This provision enables employers, who are able to satisfy retirement funds boards that they have suffered economic harm at the hands of their employees’ who are members of such retirement funds, to be compensated from liable members’ retirement benefits. It is demonstrated in this article that, by and large, the practical application of this section has been driven by the courts and the adjudicator, both of whom have interpreted this provision to include aspects that are not explicitly included in it, such as the retirement fund’s power to withhold benefits at the request of employers. It further demonstrates that there are several critical duties that are not explicitly described in any of the provisions of the Pension Funds Act which courts (and other tribunals) have held must be observed by boards when considering withholding members’ retirement benefits. In this article, these duties are critically evaluated with a view to recommending necessary amendments to s 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the Pension Funds Act.

The oath in labour arbitrations: Critiquing an arbitrator’s prerogative to swear in witnesses

The oath in labour arbitrations: Critiquing an arbitrator’s prerogative to swear in witnesses

Author: Dennis Matlou

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Advocate, Limpopo Bar
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 844-880
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a8

Abstract

Can the oath, affirmation, or admonishment really be selectively administered on some witnesses but not on others? Sworn testimony is one of the most important features of the law of evidence. It is central not only to the continental system of law but also the common-law system on which our South African law of evidence is based. Witnesses testifying in formal court proceedings are required by statute law to swear an oath or make an affirmation or be admonished as to the truth of their testimony. But why is the same requirement not obligatory in statutory labour tribunals, where presiding officers have the prerogative to decide if they require witnesses to be sworn in prior to testifying? In this article, I criticise this prerogative for being ill-conceived, and advocate for its amendment.

The legal status of human biological material used for research

The legal status of human biological material used for research

The legal status of human biological material used for research

Authors: Donrich W Thaldar & Bonginkosi Shozi

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Postdoctoral Scholar, University of California San Diego; Honorary Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 881-907
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9

Share

Cite this article

Thaldar, DW & Shozi, B
The legal status of human biological material used for research
South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 881-907
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9

Abstract

Whether human biological material (‘HBM’) in the research context is susceptible of ownership is contested, yet under-investigated. This situation leads to legal uncertainty for local scientists and their international collaborators. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the topic — investigating both common law and statutory law — and concludes that HBM in the research context is indeed susceptible of ownership. First, since the common law is dynamic, it should recognise the reality that HBM has become useful in the research context and should therefore treat HBM in this context as susceptible of being owned. This aligns with the general trend in comparative foreign case law. Secondly, since relevant statutes consistently use the legal-technical term ‘donation’ to denote a situation where HBM is provided by a research participant to a research institution for the purposes of research, the transfer of ownership in the donated HBM from the research participant to the research institution is a statutory requirement. This necessarily implies that HBM in the research context is indeed susceptible of ownership and, moreover, that HBM in the research context is owned by research institutions and not research participants.

Book Review: Richard Devlin & Sheila Wildeman (eds) Disciplining Judges: Contemporary Challenges and Controversies (2021)

Book Review: Richard Devlin & Sheila Wildeman (eds) Disciplining Judges: Contemporary Challenges and Controversies (2021)

Author: Cora Hoexter

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 908-912
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a10

Abstract

None