Altron Group Pension Fund v Thompson CSF South African Pension Fund (2008/25327) [2010] ZAGPJHC 196 (15 April 2010)

Altron Group Pension Fund v Thompson CSF South African Pension Fund (2008/25327) [2010] ZAGPJHC 196 (15 April 2010)

The court held that the functions of the Pension Funds Adjudicator are administrative in nature and not judicial. Therefore, review proceedings against the Adjudicator's decisions must be brought under PAJA, following the procedures prescribed by the Act and High Court Rule 53, including joinder of the Adjudicator. The applicant failed to invoke PAJA and did not join the Adjudicator, rendering the application fatally defective. The 2004 determination did not dispose of the merits of the complaint but only jurisdiction, and thus did not render the Adjudicator functus officio. The Adjudicator was entitled to revisit the complaint once new information became available. The application for...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 196
Parties
Applicant: THE ALTRON GROUP PENSION FUND; Respondent: THOMSON-CSF SOUTH AFRICAN PENSION FUND
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Case Number
2008/25327
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; costs are costs in the cause.
Judges
Beasley
Legal Topics
Pension Funds Act, Review of Administrative Action, Functus Officio, Pa Ja Applicability, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Funds Act Review of Administrative Action Functus Officio Pa Ja Applicability Jurisdiction of Adjudicator

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE ALTRON GROUP PENSION FUND

Applicant

THOMSON-CSF SOUTH AFRICAN PENSION FUND

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pension Funds Adjudicator's 2008 determination was a nullity due to functus officio following the 2004 decision.
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator's functions are administrative or judicial for purposes of PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review was fatally defective for failure to join the Adjudicator and invoke PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the functions of the Pension Funds Adjudicator are administrative in nature and not judicial. Therefore, review proceedings against the Adjudicator's decisions must be brought under PAJA, following the procedures prescribed by the Act and High Court Rule 53, including joinder of the Adjudicator. The applicant failed to invoke PAJA and did not join the Adjudicator, rendering the application fatally defective. The 2004 determination did not dispose of the merits of the complaint but only jurisdiction, and thus did not render the Adjudicator functus officio. The Adjudicator was entitled to revisit the complaint once new information became available. The application for...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; costs are costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • The costs of the application are costs in the cause.