.png)
On 18 August 2025, the Minister of Employment and Labour signalled an intention to withdraw the 24 December 2003 ministerial determination that has, until now, excluded funds regulated by the Pension Funds Act, 1956 (PFA) from the BCEA time periods in section 34A of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). Interested parties have 30 days to submit written representations, by 17 September 2025, to unathiramabulana@labour.gov.za.
Thomson Wilks Inc represented Ma-Afrika Hotels and Stellenbosch Kitchen in their claims against Santam for business interruption cover under its policies of insurance. The application was heard in the Western Cape High Court on 1 September 2020, by a full bench lead by DJP Goliath.
Cybercrime has grown in prominence in South Africa and around the world. Individuals, corporations, and governments are increasingly vulnerable to cyber threats such as hacking, identity theft, and fraud as technology and the internet become more widely used. Everyone needs to be careful to secure their online assets due to the growing impudence of cybercriminals and the simplicity with which they can conduct their attacks.
In the midst of a challenging fiscal landscape in South Africa, where a mounting budget deficit is exacerbated by strained tax collections, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) has taken an uncompromising stance against tax evasion. This intensified approach to revenue collection demands the attention of every taxpayer, prompting a crucial call to action. As your legal advisors, we urge you to stay vigilant and proactive in managing your tax affairs, for the consequences of negligence have never been more severe.
Not many individuals are financially independent by the time they attain majority and turn 18 years old. Most 18 year-olds are, in fact, only just commencing their tertiary education and are in no position to support themselves financially. There are several conflicting High Court judgements pertaining to the question of whether or not a parent can claim maintenance for and on behalf of their major children. The recent judgement of Z v Z (556/2021) [2022] ZASCA 113 has resolved this long-standing question of law.
Employers often enter into employment relationships with employees with the primary objective of advancing their financial interests. It is the most fundamental and known principle of employment that employees are employed to advance the employer’s financial objectives – put simply, to achieve production. But what happens when the employer refuses to work overtime? Is the agreement entered into at the commencement of the employment relationship sufficient to rely on throughout the course of employment? An employer who dismissed employees for insubordination for refusing to work overtime has recently been ordered to retrospectively reinstate employees with full back pay. This arises after the employees refused to work overtime. The employer relied on their employment agreements which had an overtime clause.This clause has become common that most employers have it almost in all employment agreements and rely on it when employees refuse to work overtime throughout the course of employment.
Employers have had to adapt to continue with their business operations during the Covid-19 pandemic, the ensuing lockdowns, and strict government regulations. Those companies able to work online from home have greatly mitigated the risks of staff contracting Covid-19 and potentially affecting their business operations.
