Other
MRL3701 assignment 1 answers 2021
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
MRL3701 assignment 1 answers 2021
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
MRL3701 Assignment 01 Unique number: 619641Due date: 16 April 2021 Ashleigh Hala Semester 01
1. The domestic employees, the Stratfords, the Minister of Labour and the
Minister of Justice were seeking an order to firstly declare section 9(4A) of
the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 unconstitutional, as it creates an indirect
discrimination against domestic employees. Secondly, that there was a
breach of the domestic employees’ constitutional rights to fair labour
practices and access to courts due to the failure to notify them of the
sequestration proceedings, resulting in the domestic employees being
unable to seek legal advice or oppose the application (Stratford v Investec
Bank Ltd 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC) [9]) (hereinafter the Stratford case).
2. The issues that were faced in the Constitutional Court were firstly to decide
whether domestic employees are included in the provisions of section 9(4A)
of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. Secondly, the issue of whether this
provision should then be declared inconsistent with the Constitution if
domestic employees are not included in this section. Thirdly, whether
compliance with section 9(4A) is peremptory or directory and lastly, was the
correct decision made by the High Court in the granting of a final
sequestration order (the Stratford case [17]).
3. For a court to have reason to believe that sequestration will be to the
advantage of the creditors, the court needs to believe that sequestration will
be the only way that some form of payment will be made to the creditors or
that there is reasonable prospect that some pecuniary benefit will result to
the creditors (the Stratford case [45]). In this case, Investec has detailed
impeachable transactions adding up to over R37 million, which gives the
court reason to believe that it will be to the creditors advantage to set these
impeachable transactions aside (the Stratford case [46], as well as,
Investec having proved on a balance of probabilities that there were
prospects of pecuniary benefit to the creditors and that a proper
investigation into the Stratford’s joint estate would uncover additional assets
(the Stratford case [12]).
1
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ashleighhala. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R79,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73527 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 15 years now