Bartram v Discovery Life Ltd and Another (59909.2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 355 (21 November 2013)

Bartram v Discovery Life Ltd and Another (59909.2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 355 (21 November 2013)

The court held that the first respondent's function was limited to removing the applicant from its own register and notifying the Registrar, as required by section 14(1) of the FAIS Act. The publication of the debarment was the responsibility of the Registrar, not the first respondent. The applicant's removal from the first respondent's register did not preclude him from rendering financial services for other providers, as he continued to do with Old Mutual. The applicant failed to establish a case for relief against the first respondent, as the debarment did not affect his ability to work elsewhere and the first respondent acted within its statutory obligations. The interim relief...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 355
Parties
Applicant: Percy George Edward Bartram; Respondent: Discovery Life Ltd; Respondent: Financial Services Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Case Number
59909/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Interim Relief and Urgent Application
Outcome
Application against the first respondent dismissed with costs; interim relief against the second respondent confirmed and made final.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, Debarment of Representatives, Procedural Fairness, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act Debarment of Representatives Procedural Fairness Review of Administrative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy George Edward Bartram

Applicant

Discovery Life Ltd

Respondent

Financial Services Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Interim Relief and Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent lawfully debarred the applicant under section 14(1) of the FAIS Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness in the debarment process.
  3. 3 Whether the publication of the applicant's debarment was a decision of the first or second respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the first respondent's function was limited to removing the applicant from its own register and notifying the Registrar, as required by section 14(1) of the FAIS Act. The publication of the debarment was the responsibility of the Registrar, not the first respondent. The applicant's removal from the first respondent's register did not preclude him from rendering financial services for other providers, as he continued to do with Old Mutual. The applicant failed to establish a case for relief against the first respondent, as the debarment did not affect his ability to work elsewhere and the first respondent acted within its statutory obligations. The interim relief...

Court Disposition

Application against the first respondent dismissed with costs; interim relief against the second respondent confirmed and made final.

Orders

  • The application against the first respondent is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the urgent application on 18 September 2012.
  • The interim relief obtained against the second respondent on 18 September 2012 is confirmed and made a final order of the court.