Magnum Financial Holdings (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) v Summerly 1984 (1) SA 160 (W)

Magnum Financial Holdings (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) v Summerly 1984 (1) SA 160 (W)

Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C)

Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C)

Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC)

Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC)

Facts

The case of Volks v Robinson arose from a dispute over the interpretation of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990 (the Act). The Act provides for the maintenance of surviving spouses and children of deceased persons. In this case, the surviving partner of a deceased person claimed maintenance under the Act, but her claim was denied on the grounds that the Act did not apply to same-sex partnerships.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the Act should be interpreted to include same-sex partnerships.

Reasons

The Constitutional Court (CC) held that the Act should be interpreted to include same-sex partnerships. The CC reasoned that the Act was passed to protect the financial security of surviving spouses and children and that this protection should be extended to all spouses and children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the deceased person. The CC also held that the Act should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Conclusion

The CC allowed the appeal and held that the Act applies to same-sex partnerships. This means that surviving partners in same-sex relationships are entitled to claim maintenance under the Act.

Summary

The case of Volks v Robinson is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the CC has considered the rights of same-sex couples in the context of the Act.

The CC's decision in Volks v Robinson is based on the following principles:

• The Act should be interpreted in a way that protects the financial security of all surviving spouses and children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the deceased person.
• The Act should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The CC's decision in Volks v Robinson has a number of implications. First, it means that same-sex couples now have the same rights to maintenance under the Act as heterosexual couples. Second, the decision means that the Social Security Agency (SASSA), which administers the Act, will now need to pay out more money in maintenance to same-sex couples. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and inheritance law.

The decision has been welcomed by LGBTQ+ rights activists and legal experts. However, some commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will place an undue burden on SASSA and that it will lead to an increase in litigation.

Overall, the decision in Volks v Robinson is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the rights of same-sex couples and on the way that SASSA administers the Act.

Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2004 (1) SA 359 (SCA)

Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2004 (1) SA 359 (SCA)

Facts

Mr. Du Plessis was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of another driver. Mr. Du Plessis was seriously injured in the accident and sustained quadriplegia. He was unable to work and required lifelong care and assistance.

Mr. Du Plessis claimed damages from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for his loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The RAF admitted liability for the accident but disputed the quantum of damages.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Mr. Du Plessis was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Erasmus and Mr. Du Plessis had been in a same-sex relationship for a number of years and had entered into a contract with each other in which they agreed to support each other financially and emotionally.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Mr. Du Plessis was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus. The court reasoned that the RAF Act does not exclude same-sex partners from claiming damages for the loss of support. The court also held that it would be discriminatory to deny same-sex partners the right to claim damages for the loss of support, as this would violate their right to equality enshrined in the South African Constitution.

The court further held that the contract between Mr. Du Plessis and Mr. Erasmus was enforceable and that it created a legal duty of support between them. The court therefore found that Mr. Du Plessis had suffered a loss of support as a result of the accident and that he was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for this loss.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Mr. Du Plessis's appeal and awarded him damages for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus.

Summary

The case of Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the SCA has considered whether same-sex partners are entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support.

The SCA's decision in Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund is based on the following principles:

• The RAF Act does not exclude same-sex partners from claiming damages for the loss of support.
• It would be discriminatory to deny same-sex partners the right to claim damages for the loss of support, as this would violate their right to equality enshrined in the South African Constitution.
• A contract between two people can create a legal duty of support between them.
• If a person suffers a loss of support as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of another person, they may be entitled to claim damages from that person.

The SCA's decision in Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund has a number of implications. First, it means that same-sex partners are now entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support. This is a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights in South Africa. Second, the decision means that the RAF will now need to pay out more money in damages. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and employment law.

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund 1999 (4) SA 1319 (SCA)

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund 1999 (4) SA 1319 (SCA)

Facts

Ms. Amod's husband was killed in a road accident caused by the negligence of another driver. Ms. Amod and her two minor children were financially dependent on her husband. Ms. Amod claimed damages from the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (MMF) for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

The MMF denied liability on the grounds that Ms. Amod's marriage was not recognized by South African law. Ms. Amod and her husband had been married in a Muslim ceremony, but they had not registered their marriage with the civil authorities.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Ms. Amod was entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support she and her children had suffered, even though her marriage was not recognized by South African law.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Ms. Amod was entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support she and her children had suffered. The court reasoned that the MMF Act does not exclude spouses from claiming damages for the loss of support simply because their marriage is not recognized by South African law. The court also held that it would be discriminatory to deny spouses the right to claim damages for the loss of support on the basis of the status of their marriage.

The court further held that Ms. Amod and her husband had entered into a valid customary marriage under Muslim law. The court found that the custom of polygamy was not repugnant to South African law and that Ms. Amod was therefore the lawful wife of her husband.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Ms. Amod's appeal and awarded her damages for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

Summary

The case of Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the SCA has considered whether spouses married in a customary marriage are entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support.

The SCA's decision in Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund is based on the following principles:

• The MMF Act does not exclude spouses from claiming damages for the loss of support simply because their marriage is not recognized by South African law.
• It would be discriminatory to deny spouses the right to claim damages for the loss of support on the basis of the status of their marriage.
• A customary marriage is a valid marriage under South African law, even if it is not registered with the civil authorities.

The SCA's decision in Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund has a number of implications. First, it means that spouses married in customary marriages are now entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support. This is a significant victory for the rights of women and children in customary marriages. Second, the decision means that the MMF will now need to pay out more money in damages. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and inheritance law.