Coetzee and Another v Financial Services Board (13530/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1142 (1 December 2017)

Coetzee and Another v Financial Services Board (13530/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1142 (1 December 2017)

The court found that the applicants were afforded multiple opportunities to make written representations regarding the allegations against them, with deadlines extended and relevant documents made available for inspection. The applicants chose not to respond or contest the facts, and their attorney confirmed receipt of the correspondence. The requirements of procedural fairness under PAJA and the audi alteram partem rule were met, as written representations are sufficient unless oral hearings are specifically requested, which was not the case here. The court further held that the debarment was valid under the FAIS Act, as the applicants' conduct rendered them unfit and improper to act as...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1142
Parties
Applicant: Josias Renier Coetzee; Applicant: Dirk Johannes Coetzee; Respondent: 4D Group Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Financial Services Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2017
Case Number
13530/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, Procedural Fairness, Audi Alteram Partem, Fit and Proper Requirements
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act Procedural Fairness Audi Alteram Partem Fit and Proper Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josias Renier Coetzee

Applicant

Dirk Johannes Coetzee

Applicant

4D Group Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Financial Services Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debarment of the applicants by the first respondent constituted procedurally fair administrative conduct under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the audi alteram partem rule was complied with during the debarment process.
  3. 3 Whether the guidelines under the FAIS Act were followed in the debarment of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were afforded multiple opportunities to make written representations regarding the allegations against them, with deadlines extended and relevant documents made available for inspection. The applicants chose not to respond or contest the facts, and their attorney confirmed receipt of the correspondence. The requirements of procedural fairness under PAJA and the audi alteram partem rule were met, as written representations are sufficient unless oral hearings are specifically requested, which was not the case here. The court further held that the debarment was valid under the FAIS Act, as the applicants' conduct rendered them unfit and improper to act as...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The resignation of the first and second applicants is declared valid and binding with effect from 15 November 2016.