Van Rhyn and Another v Pension Funds Adjudicator and Others (2138/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 165 (31 March 2021)

Van Rhyn and Another v Pension Funds Adjudicator and Others (2138/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 165 (31 March 2021)

The court found that the first and second complaints were materially the same, both challenging the inclusion of Mr Adams as a dependant and the extent of his alleged dependency. The Adjudicator was correct in finding itself functus officio after its first determination, as it had already ordered a reinvestigation and DSV had conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant evidence. The applicants failed to provide any new evidence or justification for further reconsideration. DSV's discretion was properly exercised, and the Adjudicator's decision was final and binding. There was no basis for the court to interfere or remit the matter for reconsideration.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 165
Parties
Applicant: Nicolaas Albertus van Rhyn; Applicant: Susanna Elizabeth van Rhyn; Respondent: Pension Funds Adjudicator; Respondent: DSV Flexi Retirement Funds; Respondent: Daniel Adriaans Adams
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Case Number
2138/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, excluding costs of appearances in June and September 2018.
Judges
Millar AJ
Legal Topics
Pension Funds Act, Functus Officio, Judicial Review, Distribution of Death Benefits
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Pension Funds Act Functus Officio Judicial Review Distribution of Death Benefits

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolaas Albertus van Rhyn

Applicant

Susanna Elizabeth van Rhyn

Applicant

Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

DSV Flexi Retirement Funds

Respondent

Daniel Adriaans Adams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pension Funds Adjudicator was functus officio in respect of the second complaint.
  2. 2 Whether DSV Flexi Retirement Funds properly exercised its discretion in determining dependency and apportionment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to have the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first and second complaints were materially the same, both challenging the inclusion of Mr Adams as a dependant and the extent of his alleged dependency. The Adjudicator was correct in finding itself functus officio after its first determination, as it had already ordered a reinvestigation and DSV had conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant evidence. The applicants failed to provide any new evidence or justification for further reconsideration. DSV's discretion was properly exercised, and the Adjudicator's decision was final and binding. There was no basis for the court to interfere or remit the matter for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, excluding costs of appearances in June and September 2018.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application to date, excluding the costs of the appearances in June and September 2018.