Becker and Another v Registrar of Financial Services Providers and Others (61274/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 926 (30 November 2017)

Becker and Another v Registrar of Financial Services Providers and Others (61274/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 926 (30 November 2017)

The court found that the Second Applicant's business model involved the issuing of guarantee policies as defined in the Short-Term Insurance Act, not mere suretyships. The payments received from clients were consistently referred to and treated as premiums, not administration fees. The Appeal Board's findings that the Second Applicant carried on unauthorised short-term insurance business and that the guarantees issued fell within the statutory definition of guarantee policies were correct and could not be faulted. The Applicants' challenge to the administrative action failed on the merits. Condonation for the late filing of the review application was granted due to the importance of the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 926
Parties
Applicant: Ilse Becker; Applicant: Fusion Guarantees (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Financial Services Providers; Respondent: Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board; Respondent: Mr Justice C.T. Howie (in his capacity as Chairman of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board); Respondent: Mr D L Brooking (in his capacity as a member of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board); Respondent: Mr J M Damons (in his capacity as a member of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board); Respondent: Registrar of Short-Term Insurance
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Case Number
61274/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two Counsel.
Judges
M M Rip
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Short Term Insurance Act, Unauthorised Insurance Business, Condonation for Late Review, Definition of Guarantee Policy
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Short Term Insurance Act Unauthorised Insurance Business Condonation for Late Review Definition of Guarantee Policy

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilse Becker

Applicant

Fusion Guarantees (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Registrar of Financial Services Providers

Respondent

Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board

Respondent

Mr Justice C.T. Howie (in his capacity as Chairman of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board)

Respondent

Mr D L Brooking (in his capacity as a member of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board)

Respondent

Mr J M Damons (in his capacity as a member of the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board)

Respondent

Registrar of Short-Term Insurance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Applicant carried on unauthorised short-term insurance business in conflict with Section 7 of the Short-Term Insurance Act.
  2. 2 Whether the documents issued by the Second Applicant constituted guarantee policies or mere suretyships.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Applicant's business model involved the issuing of guarantee policies as defined in the Short-Term Insurance Act, not mere suretyships. The payments received from clients were consistently referred to and treated as premiums, not administration fees. The Appeal Board's findings that the Second Applicant carried on unauthorised short-term insurance business and that the guarantees issued fell within the statutory definition of guarantee policies were correct and could not be faulted. The Applicants' challenge to the administrative action failed on the merits. Condonation for the late filing of the review application was granted due to the importance of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two Counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of the application, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two Counsel.