Slabbert v Legal Practice Council, Free State (995/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 240 (15 October 2021)

Slabbert v Legal Practice Council, Free State (995/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 240 (15 October 2021)

The court found that the applicant had complied with all requirements set by the respondent, including completion of relevant courses and agreement to compensate the Legal Practitioners Fund. The applicant candidly acknowledged his previous misconduct and character defects, and submitted favourable expert reports. The respondent's opposition was deemed unhelpful and unfair, especially after its own subcommittee had resolved not to oppose the application. The court was satisfied that the applicant had discharged the onus to prove genuine and permanent reformation and was fit and proper to be re-admitted. No specific conditions for supervised practice were imposed, as such matters are best...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 240
Parties
Applicant: Frederik Willem Slabbert; Respondent: Legal Practice Council, Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
995/2020
Procedural Posture
Re Admission Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted: the applicant is re-admitted as a legal practitioner and authorized to be re-enrolled as a practicing attorney and notary.
Judges
M.A. Mathebula, P.J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Re Admission of Attorney, Fit and Proper Person, Professional Misconduct, Rehabilitation, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Re Admission of Attorney Fit and Proper Person Professional Misconduct Rehabilitation Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederik Willem Slabbert

Applicant

Legal Practice Council, Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Re Admission Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to prove he is fit and proper to be re-admitted as an attorney and notary.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has undergone genuine, complete and permanent reformation of character.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's opposition to the application was justified given the applicant's compliance with its requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had complied with all requirements set by the respondent, including completion of relevant courses and agreement to compensate the Legal Practitioners Fund. The applicant candidly acknowledged his previous misconduct and character defects, and submitted favourable expert reports. The respondent's opposition was deemed unhelpful and unfair, especially after its own subcommittee had resolved not to oppose the application. The court was satisfied that the applicant had discharged the onus to prove genuine and permanent reformation and was fit and proper to be re-admitted. No specific conditions for supervised practice were imposed, as such matters are best...

Court Disposition

Application granted: the applicant is re-admitted as a legal practitioner and authorized to be re-enrolled as a practicing attorney and notary.

Orders

  • The applicant is re-admitted to practice as a Legal Practitioner.
  • The respondent is authorized to re-enrol the applicant as a practicing attorney and notary.