Can the future development of a property be stopped?

The provincial heritage resources authority (PHRA) granted a permit in terms of Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 for the demolition of a structure that was older than 60 years and situated on a property with no formal heritage status. By doing so, conditions were imposed controlling future development on the property and it was held that such conditions were lawfully imposed.

Gees v the Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the Western Cape High Court. In so doing the SCA held that the large concentration of art deco buildings spanning Davenport Road, Vredehoek, Cape Town, forms part of the national estate and is worthy of protection as a heritage resource.

Therefore, the SCA held that Heritage Western Cape, in granting a permit for the demolition of the appellant’s 60-year-old block of flats, was justified in imposing conditions controlling future development on the property.

It is true that the conditions imposed in the demolition permit amount to a curtailment of the appellant’s entitlement to deal with his property as he sees fit, and may therefore to a certain extent be regarded as a deprivation of property. However, it is widely recognised that in our present constitutional democracy an increased emphasis has been placed upon the characteristic of ownership which requires that entitlements must be exercised in accordance with the social function of law in the interest of the community.

Conclusion

AJ van der Walt and GJ Pienaar in “Introduction to the Law of Property” 7ed (2016), put it as follows:

‘. . . the inherent responsibility of the owner towards the community in the exercise of his entitlements is emphasised. The balance between the protection of ownership and the exercise of entitlements of the owner regarding third parties, on the one hand, and the obligations of the owner to the community, on the other hand, must be maintained throughout. This might, in certain circumstances, even mean that an owner’s entitlements could be limited or infringed upon in the interest of the community. In such cases the infringement must always be reasonable and equitable [not arbitrary].’

Reference:

  • Gees v The Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport (974/2015) [2015] ZASCA 136 (29 September 2016)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Who pays for the child after divorce?

When couples divorce it’s often the children that feel the brunt of it. Sometimes it’s the other person in the relationship that suffers economically. Hence the reason there’s a legal duty towards maintenance after divorce, which is an obligation to provide for another person.

A child of a divorced couple, for example, may need help with housing, food, education and medical care. Maintenance could also be understood as providing the means for the person to have the necessary essentials. Maintenance duties is based on factors such as blood relationship, adoption, or that two people are/were married to each other.

This duty is also referred to as ‘the duty to maintain’ or ‘the duty to support’.

Which parent supports the child?

If a couple has decided on getting divorced, then the child has to be supported by both the parents, regardless if they’re living together or whether or not the child was adopted. In some cases, the grandparents are also responsible for the child’s maintenance, even if the parents weren’t married. This usually happens if the parents are unable to support the child.

What if the child is living with one parent?

In scenarios where the child is living with one of the parents, it is still the duty of the other parent to also contribute to the maintenance of the child. Many people in South Africa, especially women, face the reality of an ex-spouse who doesn’t live with the child and doesn’t want to pay maintenance. However, there is no legal way out of a parent contributing to a child’s maintenance, even if one of the parents re-marries.

What if you can’t find your non-paying ex-spouse?

If one of the child’s parents refuses to pay and doesn’t make their whereabouts known, then it is the responsibility of the state to claim maintenance from the unpaying parent. Maintenance investigators will try solve the issue and trace the person who is responsible for maintenance.

When does the maintenance end?

Until a child reaches the age of 18, his/her parents or another person (guardian) will have the parental rights and responsibilities for the child. This includes the maintenance of the child. So both the divorced parents of a child will have to contribute to the caring and maintenance of the child at least until he/she becomes an adult.

References:

  • Anderson, AM. Dodd, A. Roos, MC. 2012. “Everyone’s Guide to South African Law. Third Edition”. Zebra Press.
  • Justice.gov.za. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Family Law, Maintenance. [online] Available at: http://www.justice.gov.za/vg/children/ [Accessed 13/05/2016].

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Children with disability or chronic illness

The South African Children’s Act ensures the safety of ALL children,including those with disability or chronic illness.

Many children (and their families) experience a sense of powerlessness in the beginning of dealing with a disability or chronic illness, and often feel very stressed at facing a future filled with unknowns. Every child has the right to health and safety, and in South Africa, the Children’s Act provides for the health and safety of ALL children, including children with disability or chronic illness. It is important that children who are disabled or live with a chronic illness know their rights; they should be informed and protected.

The law on children with disability

South African law states that due consideration must be given to children with disability:

  • The child must be provided with care and support as and when appropriate.
  • It must be made possible for the child to participate in social and educational activities, recognising their special needs and promoting self-reliance.

The law on children with chronic illness

According to South African law, the following must be evident when it comes to children with chronic illness:

  • The child must be provided with the necessary parental care and support services.
  • The child must be provided with conditions that ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate participation in the community.

A child with disability or chronic illness has the right not to be subjected to medical, cultural or religious practices that are detrimental to their health or dignity. Parents or guardians should do their best to protect the rights of their children, and also to listen to them and assist them where needed. However, it is important not to safeguard them in such a way as to alienate them from the rest of the world.

Reference:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

HIV-testing for children

The Children’s Act provides that children cannot simply be tested for HIV,and that their status be held confidential

A child cannot merely be tested for HIV; a valid reason must be given in order to protect the child from being unnecesarily tested, potentially causing emotional or physical harm. According to the Children’s Act, no child may be tested for HIV, except when it is in the best interests of the child and consent has been given, or the test is necessary to establish whether someone may have contracted HIV from the child.

Consent for an HIV-test

Consent for an HIV-test on a child may be given by:

  • the child;
  • the parent or caregiver;
  • the provincial head of social development;
  • a designated child protection organisation arranging a placement of the child;
  • the superintendent or person in charge of the hospital; and/or
  • a children’s court.

Confidentiality of status

The law states that no person may disclose (without consent) that a child is HIV-positive, except when:

  • the law states that it is the person’s duty; and/or
  • it is necessary for legal proceedings.

Consent to disclose that the child is HIV-positive may be given by the same role players that are to give consent for the HIV-testing procedure.

Note that when it comes to the HIV-testing of a child, whether regarding the procedure of testing or the confidentiality of the child’s status, that there exist specific requirements for all potential role players to actually be granted as valid persons to be giving consent.

Reference:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Is Uber legal?

Following the death of one of Uber’s employees due to clashes between Uber drivers and taxi drivers, the Department of Labour has clarified its position in terms of labour legislation.

Recently, the Department of Labour acknowledged and applauded the ruling by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) that Uber drivers are the employees of the company. This decision was in line with the Labour Relations (Act 66 of 1995) as amended. “With regard to the Uber drivers, like any employees, there are no exceptions. They are fully protected by the South African Labour Laws including the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA)”, Commissioner Vuyo Mafata said.

Under the Labour Relations Act, any person who falls in that category is an employee and therefore fully covered in terms of labour legislation.

What happens if an Uber driver is injured?

The COID Act compensates employees who are injured or die during the cause of duty. Therefore, it means the beneficiaries of the Uber driver who died after he was allegedly attacked in Pretoria last month qualify for compensation according to the Act. However, the Fund will have to be provided with all the required documents in order to process the claim.

What about the employer, Uber?

For Uber drivers, all of this is good news. Employees will not be penalised or forfeit their benefits because of unregistered employers, instead the employers will be fined. Furthermore, employers must register their companies with the Compensation Fund so that employees are covered under the COID Act.

Reference:

  • “Department of Labour’s position in terms of Uber drivers and CCMA ruling”, Lloyd Ramutloa – the Department of Labour.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Getting child contact for divorced parents

Contact refers to maintaining a personal relationship with a child. It entitles a person to see, spend time with (visit or be visited) or communicate (through post, by telephone or any form of electronic communication) with a child who does not live with that person. The child’s parent/s or a person other than the child’s parent/s (such as grandparent) can obtain the right to contact a child, provided that the contact would serve in the child’s best interests.

What will the court consider when granting an order in respect of contact?

  1. The best interests of the child.
  2. The nature of the personal relationship between the child and his/her parent/s.
  3. The degree of commitment the parent/s has shown towards the child.
  4. The extent to which the parent/s has contributed towards the expenses in connection with the birth and maintenance of the child.
  5. The likely effect on the child of any change in the child’s circumstances, including the effect of being separated from the parent/s or brothers/sisters with whom the child has been living.
  6. Any family violence involving the child or a family member of the child.
  7. The need to protect the child from any physical or psychological harm that may be caused by subjecting or exposing the child to maltreatment, abuse, neglect, degradation, violence or harmful behaviour.
  8. The child’s age, maturity, stage of development, gender, background and relevant characteristics of the child.
  9. Any disability that a child may have and any chronic illness from which a child may suffer from.

A parenting plan will contain a clause setting out the reasonable contact that the parent of alternate residence shall have with the child during term time and school holidays, taking into account the child’s social, school and extra-mural activities.

​There are an infinite number of possibilities available when drawing up a parenting plan. Jobs, schools and a variety of other factors must still be taken into account. The bottom line is to find a plan that works for the whole family.

References:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

When can spouses get a divorce?

There are only two grounds for divorce, namely the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; or mental illness or continued unconsciousness of one of the spouses.

Examples of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as a ground for divorce include:

  1. the spouses not living together for a continuous period of one year;
  2. abuse towards the spouse or the children;
  3. adultery;
  4. habitual criminality;
  5. drunkenness or drug addiction; or
  6. loss of love and affection between the spouses.

The court’s discretion to grant a divorce order

The court still has discretion not to grant a divorce order, and may postpone the proceedings or dismiss the claim if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility that the parties may reconcile through counselling. If reconciliation is unsuccessful after a few months, the parties may proceed with the same summons. The summons will usually contain the averment that further counselling and/or treatment will not lead to any reconciliation. A court must, therefore, be satisfied that the marriage is really broken down and that there is no possibility of the continuation of a normal marriage.

What if the couple reconciles?

Where the parties reconcile and live together again after the summons was issued and served, it does not necessarily end the divorce proceedings. If, however, the reconciliation is unsuccessful after a few months, the parties may proceed with the same summons. It is extremely important to make sure that the summons is withdrawn formally if you do decide to reconcile. Withdrawal of the summons is formally affected when the plaintiff serves a document referred to as a notice of withdrawal of the summons on the defendant or his/her attorney. If this is not done, a divorce order may be obtained by default without the defendant being aware of it. If a divorce is obtained in this manner, the aggrieved party may approach the court to set aside the order.

Conclusion

Since the present law on divorce is no longer based on the principle of fault, defences like insanity or the plaintiff’s own adultery are no longer valid defences. Therefore, if a divorce is instituted on account of an irretrievable breakdown, there is in fact no defence to prevent the divorce from proceeding. But if the court finds that there is a reasonable possibility of reconciliation, it may postpone the proceedings in order that the parties attempt reconciliation; this, however, is not a defence, but merely amounts to a postponement.

References:

  • Justive.gov.za
  • Legalwise.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

When does prescription of a debt start?

Debt does not last forever, after a period of time it prescribes and becomes invalid. Prescribed debt can be explained as old debt that has not been acknowledged over a period of three years. This means that a debt prescribes if:

  • You have not acknowledged the debt in the past three consecutive years, either in writing or verbally.
  • You have not made a payment promised to make a payment to the outstanding debt amount.
  • You have not been summoned to make a payment by a creditor for the debt within the past three consecutive years.

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Limited v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Limited

On 5 September 2017, the Constitutional Court handed down a judgment in an appeal against the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (Trinity). The SCA ruled that Trinity’s claim for repayment of a debt of some R4.55 million against Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (Grindstone) was unenforceable because it had prescribed.

The parties entered into a written loan agreement, effective from 1 September 2007, in terms of which Grindstone borrowed a capital amount of R3 050 000 (loan capital) from Trinity. Clause 2.3 of the loan agreement provided that the loan capital was due and repayable to the applicant within 30 days from the date of delivery of Trinity’s written demand.

The majority judgment found that, on a holistic reading of the loan agreement, the parties did not intend to delay when the debt would become due or when prescription would begin to run. The parties’ language in the contract did not signify an intention to delay. The parties simply meant to allow Grindstone 30 days to repay the debt once Trinity had issued demand, not to postpone the due date of the debt to an indeterminate future date. The debt thus became due, and prescription began to run, immediately on conclusion of the contract.

Grindstone therefore raised a valid prescription defence, and the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion

If you are uncertain about a debt amount or require assistance in this regard, then please contact your financial advisor, who will assist you with taking the next steps.

References:

  • Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Limited v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Limited (CCCT248/16) [2017] ZACC 32 (5 September 2017)

What is Prescribed Debt?

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Can I trade mark a phrase that is similar to another brand?

When a trade mark (brand name, slogan or logo) has been registered, nobody else can use this trade mark, or one that is confusingly similar. If this happens, legal action may result. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (“CIPC”) administers the Register of Trade Marks, which is the record of all the trade marks that have been formally applied for and registered in South Africa.

PepsiCo Inc v Atlantic Industries

Atlantic Industries Is the registered proprietor of the trade marks TWIST, LEMON TWIST and DIET TWIST in relation to non-alcoholic drinks. PepsiCo applied to have these marks expunged and applied for the registration of the word mark PEPSI TWIST and of a device mark incorporating the words PEPSI TWIST. PepsiCo applied for the expungement of Atlantic’s marks on the basis that the word ‘Twist’ was not capable of distinguishing a proprietor’s goods and was purely descriptive. The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) rejected these contentions, finding that the word ‘Twist’ in relation to non-alcoholic drinks was an arbitrary non-descriptive word and that any association with non-alcoholic drinks was at most allusive or metaphorical. There was in any event overwhelming evidence that through extensive use the mark TWIST had become distinctive of Atlantic’s beverages.

Regarding PepsiCo’s application for the registration of its marks, the SCA held that the incorporation, in the proposed marks, of the sole distinctive feature of Atlantic’s marks, namely TWIST, was likely to deceive or cause confusion as to the origins of the beverages manufactured by Atlantic and PepsiCo respectively. The likelihood of deception or confusion was not avoided by inserting PEPSI before TWIST because the latter word played an independent distinctive role in the composite sign.

Conclusion

Whether or word is purely descriptive or not, is irrelevant when considering the word’s relation to a company’s brand or product. Once a phrase or word becomes associated with a product, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to expunge and trade mark that word or a similar phrase.

References:

  • PepsiCo Inc v Atlantic Industries (983/16) [2017] ZASCA 109
  • Companies and Intellectual Property Commission | CIPC | http://www.cipc.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Company Slogans: How much of it is Intellectual Property?

Slogans are key elements in advertising campaigns as brand owners hope that the public will associate the slogan with their products or services and, therefore, to their brand. For this reason, the question of protection is of high importance.

What is a trade mark?

A slogan is a short phrase or a sentence that a company uses to identify itself or its products. It identifies the services or goods of one person and distinguishes it from the goods and services of another. An example would be Nike’s slogan, “Just Do It”.

  1. Once a slogan has been registered as a trade mark, nobody else can use it, or one that is confusingly similar. If this happens, legal action may result.
  2. A trade mark can only be protected as such and defended under the Trade Marks Act, 1993 (Act 194 of 1993) if it is registered. Unregistered trade marks may be defended in terms of common law. The registration procedure results in a registration certificate which has legal status, allowing the owner of the registered trade mark the exclusive right to use that mark.

CIPC administers the Register of Trade Marks which is the record of all the trade marks that have been formally applied for and registered in the Republic of South Africa.

What can be registered as a trade mark?

If you want to register a slogan, you must first consider of the slogan in question serves the purpose of distinguishing the goods/services of one trader from those of another trader.

  1. It must not be a customary, everyday phrase that is common for people to use in your field of trade.
  2. It can’t be representations of protected national emblems, such as the national flag or a depiction of a national monument, such as Table Mountain.
  3. It must not be offensive or contrary to the law or good morals or deceptive by nature or way of use.
  4. There are no earlier conflicting rights.

An example of a slogan or phrase that can’t be registered as a trade mark is “24 Hours”, since the expression is reasonably required for use by other traders. If a phrase like this was trade marked, the owner of the registration would acquire the exclusive right to use this phrase and thereby prevent all other traders from using it, which is unreasonable and therefore cannot be allowed.

References:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)