Moor and Another v Tongaat-Hulett Pension Fund and Others (518/17) [2018] ZASCA 83; [2018] 3 All SA 326 (SCA); 2019 (3) SA 465 (SCA) (31 May 2018)

Moor and Another v Tongaat-Hulett Pension Fund and Others (518/17) [2018] ZASCA 83; [2018] 3 All SA 326 (SCA); 2019 (3) SA 465 (SCA) (31 May 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the allocation of R363.2 million to the employer surplus account was lawful and constituted an apportionment of actuarial surplus as defined in the Pension Funds Act. Rule 11.5 was a valid rule under section 15C(1), properly enacted and approved by the Registrar, and the allocation complied with both the factual and legal requirements. The Board was properly constituted, and no evidence of bias or conflict of interest was established. The scheme was a composite arrangement approved by stakeholders and the Registrar, and the appellants' challenge to a single component was impermissible. The application to lead further evidence was dismissed as the new...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: Bruce St Clair Moor; Appellant: Willem Jan Hazewindus; Respondent: Tongaat-Hulett Pension Fund; Respondent: Tongaat-Hulett Defined Benefit Pension Fund; Respondent: Tongaat Hulett Limited; Respondent: Registrar of Pension Funds
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Case Number
518/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwazulu Natal Local Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal and application to lead further evidence dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Majiedt, Mbha, Dambuza, Schippers
Legal Topics
Pension Funds Act, Actuarial Surplus Apportionment, Employer Surplus Account, Fund Rules Interpretation, Conflict of Interest, Costs in Private Litigation
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Pension Funds Act Actuarial Surplus Apportionment Employer Surplus Account Fund Rules Interpretation Conflict of Interest Costs in Private Litigation

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce St Clair Moor

Appellant

Willem Jan Hazewindus

Appellant

Tongaat-Hulett Pension Fund

Respondent

Tongaat-Hulett Defined Benefit Pension Fund

Respondent

Tongaat Hulett Limited

Respondent

Registrar of Pension Funds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwazulu Natal Local Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the allocation of R363.2 million to the employer surplus account in 2012 contravened section 15C of the Pension Funds Act.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 11.5 of the Fund's rules lawfully provided for the apportionment of actuarial surplus.
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Trustees acted with bias or conflict of interest in approving the surplus allocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the allocation of R363.2 million to the employer surplus account was lawful and constituted an apportionment of actuarial surplus as defined in the Pension Funds Act. Rule 11.5 was a valid rule under section 15C(1), properly enacted and approved by the Registrar, and the allocation complied with both the factual and legal requirements. The Board was properly constituted, and no evidence of bias or conflict of interest was established. The scheme was a composite arrangement approved by stakeholders and the Registrar, and the appellants' challenge to a single component was impermissible. The application to lead further evidence was dismissed as the new...

Court Disposition

Appeal and application to lead further evidence dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application to lead further evidence is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.