Tag: legalcompliance

When a senior advisor or executive walks out the door, especially to join a competitor, your restraint of trade clause is often the only thing standing between you and serious commercial damage. Here is what recent South African case law tells us about what works, what does not and what you need to do now.

A brand runs an on-pack promotion: buy a product, find the code inside, enter it on an app, and you might win a prize.  The prize could range from a free lunch to an all-expenses-paid trip to Paris. Thousands of people enter, and a winner is drawn. The marketing team would love to announce the winner with a photograph and a celebratory post on social media. However, the winner would rather not.

The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) requires the state’s Compensation Commissioner to compensate employees for losses resulting from workplace injuries. This applies when an injury complies with the legal definition. Some employers also acquire workplace injury cover from private insurance companies. However, these companies sometimes reject claims and create unnecessary workplace slip-ups for employees seeking compensation.

The Plaintiffs operated restaurant businesses and appointed the defendant as their insurance broker. The defendant's mandate required it to procure commercial insurance on the Plaintiffs' behalf. On 4 June 2019, the defendant obtained policies from Renasa Insurance Company Ltd. However, these policies did not include an extended business interruption clause covering losses arising from infectious disease outbreaks.

The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) has handed down a significant decision addressing a question that many employers and legal practitioners regularly confront. Can a disciplinary chairperson reject a lenient sanction emerging from a plea-bargaining process? The LAC answered this question in South African Police Services vs Mkonto and Others. The judgment also highlights the limits of leniency within disciplinary proceedings.

When arbitrators and judges assess whether a dismissal was fair, they must apply the objective test. In simple terms, they must decide whether a reasonable person would conclude that the conduct justified dismissal. This assessment must remain unemotional and evidence-based. However, misunderstanding the objective test often leads to incorrect conclusions.

With effect from 22 April 2025, the Gauteng Division of the High Court introduced mandatory mediation before civil trials. As a result, parties must first undergo mediation before applying for a trial date. In practical terms, mediation is not optional in civil litigation within this division.