It is often the case that an employer contracts or sub-contracts with other parties to perform certain work. These parties are referred to in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA) as “mandataries” . A “mandatary” may sound like some prehistoric animal that has recently been found to be alive and well and living off the coastal waters of Mozambique. In fact, this creature lives in the OHSA. But what is it and why does it matter? Who takes responsibility for the conduct of the mandatary and its employees? When should parties conclude an agreement in terms of section 37(2) of the OHSA?

This article explores these questions.

Click here to view the full article......

By Insaaf Davids

Eskom’s price hikes have prompted a growing number of consumers to install liquefied petroleum (LP) gas appliances.

For this reason, along with health and culinary factors, gas hobs, combination gas-and-electric hobs, water heaters, refrigeration and even gas fire-places are becoming increasingly commonplace in South African households.

But while choosing and installing gas appliances makes good economic sense, the accompanying potential pitfalls dare not be ignored.

Of particular relevance is that sale agreements include a clause that provides for a compliance certificate to be provided by the seller where there are permanent gas installations on the property.

Click here to read the full article.........

By Richard Fitzgerald

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal dealing with an appeal against an Order in terms of section 420 of the Companies Act, whereby a company’s dissolution was declared void, sends out a warning to financial institutions who choose to “buy in” (in other words, who buy the assets which they had initially financed, post – liquidation), and liquidators who follow the instructions of the main creditor too closely, and in so doing run the risk of acting contrary to the company’s best interests.

Following the winding up of a property development company which had bought land near Pretoria to develop into an upmarket security village, the liquidators convened an auction (once authorized in terms of section 386 (2B) of the Companies Act), in order to sell the stands comprising the development.

The petitioning creditor was the bank that had financed the development. It held as security for its loan a mortgage bond over the property. At the time of the liquidation the bank was owed some R29 million.

Click here to read the full article......