Maynard v Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited (21243/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 370 (15 November 2024)

Maynard v Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited (21243/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 370 (15 November 2024)

The Court held that section 14 of the FAIS Act imposes a statutory duty on financial services providers to initiate and effect debarment proceedings in appropriate circumstances, and that this duty cannot be compromised or waived by private agreement, even by way of a settlement agreement. The initiation of debarment proceedings is not administrative action under PAJA but is subject to legality review. The Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent acted unlawfully in initiating the debarment process, either by virtue of the settlement agreement or due to an ulterior purpose. The Respondent's version, supported by affidavit, that it acted to comply with statutory obligations and...

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 370
Parties
Applicant: Giles Alexander Power Maynard; Respondent: Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Case Number
21243/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief (part B) Following Interim Interdict
Judges
M W Janisch
Legal Topics
Fais Act Debarment, Fit and Proper Requirements, Confidential Information, Restraint of Trade, Settlement Agreement, Ulterior Purpose
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Fais Act Debarment Fit and Proper Requirements Confidential Information Restraint of Trade Settlement Agreement +1 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giles Alexander Power Maynard

Applicant

Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief (part B) Following Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an FSP can lawfully compromise or contract out of its statutory duty to initiate debarment proceedings under section 14 of the FAIS Act.
  2. 2 Whether the initiation of debarment proceedings by the Respondent was unlawful due to an alleged ulterior purpose.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement between the parties precluded the Respondent from commencing debarment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that section 14 of the FAIS Act imposes a statutory duty on financial services providers to initiate and effect debarment proceedings in appropriate circumstances, and that this duty cannot be compromised or waived by private agreement, even by way of a settlement agreement. The initiation of debarment proceedings is not administrative action under PAJA but is subject to legality review. The Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent acted unlawfully in initiating the debarment process, either by virtue of the settlement agreement or due to an ulterior purpose. The Respondent's version, supported by affidavit, that it acted to comply with statutory obligations and...