Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
BC Funding Solution (Pty) Limited v Estate Agency Affairs Board (006468-2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 242 (7 March 2024)
Summary judgment was refused in a claim under the Estate Agency Affairs Act because the alleged entrustment of funds and trust-money status raised a triable issue.
Smith v Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board (26539/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 66 (1 February 2023)
The Court found that the Plaintiff's payments to Dadic Attorneys, through Mr Stephens, were made with the intention of investing in financial schemes for profit, not as trust money for legal purposes. The Plaintiff specified the borrowers, was introduced to the schemes by Mr Stephens, and received interest payments, confirming the investment nature of the transactions. The statutory exclusions in section 47(1)(g) and 47(5)(b) of the Attorneys Act applied, exonerating the Fund from liability. The Plaintiff's efforts to recover from the attorney and employee were deemed reasonable given the cir…
Source excerpt
Devland Cash and Carry (Pty) Limited v Attorneys Fidelity Fund (7307/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 27; [2017] 2 All SA 825 (WCC) (22 March 2017)
The court held that the applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that monies were physically entrusted to LBG Attorneys prior to the furnishing of the irrevocable undertaking. The undertaking did not constitute sufficient proof of entrustment under section 26(a) of the Attorneys Act. The applicant did not fall within the categories entitled to reimbursement, as the money was not entrusted by or on behalf of the applicant, nor was there evidence of theft by the attorney. LBG Attorneys acted merely as a conduit, and the applicant’s claim was based on breach of undertaking rathe…
Source excerpt
Rodel Finance Services (Pty) Ltd v Attorneys Fidelity Fund (16833/2007) [2010] ZAWCHC 407 (24 May 2010)
The High Court held that Rodel had not “entrusted” money to an attorney under section 26 of the Attorneys’ Act, so the Fidelity Fund claim failed.
Explore more
