Meyer v Iscor Pension Fund (391/01) [2002] ZASCA 148; [2003] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); 2003 (2) SA 715 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 338 (SCA); [2003] 5 BLLR 439 (SCA) (28 November 2002)

Meyer v Iscor Pension Fund (391/01) [2002] ZASCA 148; [2003] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); 2003 (2) SA 715 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 338 (SCA); [2003] 5 BLLR 439 (SCA) (28 November 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Meyer did not qualify for the enhanced pension benefits under the amended rule 6.2, as he was no longer a member of the Fund at the time of the amendment. The differentiation between members and former members was not in itself unfair discrimination, and the trustees acted within their powers in applying the rules prospectively. The Court found that the doctrine of legitimate expectation in South African law does not extend to the enforcement of substantive benefits, but is limited to procedural fairness. Iscor's promise regarding retrenchment benefits did not include pension benefits, and there was no basis to compel the Fund to act contrary to its...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 148
Parties
Appellant: Cedric Meyer; Respondent: Iscor Pension Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2002
Case Number
391/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Setting Aside of Adjudicator's Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Cameron, Navsa, Brand, Jones
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Rules, Unfair Discrimination, Legitimate Expectation, Fiduciary Duty, Administrative Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Pension Fund Rules Unfair Discrimination Legitimate Expectation Fiduciary Duty Administrative Review

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cedric Meyer

Appellant

Iscor Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Setting Aside of Adjudicator's Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to rule 6.2 of the Iscor Pension Fund rules, conferring additional benefits on certain members, constituted unfair discrimination against former members such as Meyer.
  2. 2 Whether Meyer had a legitimate expectation, based on Iscor's undertakings, to receive enhanced pension benefits retrospectively.
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator's determination in favour of Meyer was justified in law and fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Meyer did not qualify for the enhanced pension benefits under the amended rule 6.2, as he was no longer a member of the Fund at the time of the amendment. The differentiation between members and former members was not in itself unfair discrimination, and the trustees acted within their powers in applying the rules prospectively. The Court found that the doctrine of legitimate expectation in South African law does not extend to the enforcement of substantive benefits, but is limited to procedural fairness. Iscor's promise regarding retrenchment benefits did not include pension benefits, and there was no basis to compel the Fund to act contrary to its...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.