9th Floor, Wale Street Chambers, 38 Wale Street, Cape Town, 8001
Phone: +27(21) 424 7390
Email: info@asg.law
Client Background:
Client Profile: Our client, a senior attorney who is very experienced in curatorship of Pension Funds and the various acts that impact the administration of pension funds, was appointed as the provisional curator of a pension fund in December 2010.
The Fund was placed in provisional curatorship following an investigation by the Financial Services Board given irregularities in the conduct of the business and affairs of the Fund by its trustees and improper use of the Fund’s monies.
The provisional order, granted on 21 December 2010, provided for the former trustees of the Fund to pay the costs of the curatorship, and appointed a provisional curator to administer and investigate the affairs of the Fund.
Challenges Faced: After the provisional order was granted, the former trustees of the Fund resigned, and newly appointed trustees brought a counter application to seek the removal of the provisional curator on the basis that he was conflicted.
They, however, did not oppose the necessity of the Fund being placed under curatorship, and nominated persons not experienced in pension fund administration to be appointed as curators of the Fund.
During the proceedings, it was found by the High Court that the newly appointed trustees had brought the counter-application at the behest of the former Chairman of the Fund that had always controlled the affairs of the Fund prior to it being placed into provisional curatorship.
The High Court in Johannesburg granted an order placing the fund into final curatorship, confirming the final appointment of the provisional curator as the curator (our client), and confirming that the former trustees of the Fund were obliged to pay the costs of the curatorship.
The Problem:
This judgement was then taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal where the final appointment of the curator was hotly contested. At the hearing, the parties agreed to an order that two curators be appointed together with the original curator appointed by the High Court, and that all issues of costs were referred to determination by the High Court afresh.
The above process took some seven years at substantial cost to the Fund and its members.
Our Approach:
Even though the Financial Services Board was the applicant in the original application to place the Fund into curatorship, it had not taken steps to set the matter down in the High Court for the issue of costs to be determined as per the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
These included the curatorship costs already awarded by the High Court, but which had been referred for determination by the High Court afresh by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
On advice from ASG, the curators of the Fund instructed ASG to set down a determination of the costs in the High Court in 2021, including the curatorship costs, which at that stage was some R45 million.
Execution:
The Judge allocated to the matter raised at the first hearing the question whether the issue of costs was not to be determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeal then subsequently stated the obvious - that it had referred the issue of costs to the High Court to determine the same afresh.
Rather unfortunately, thereafter, the Judge postponed the matter and called for a report from the curators on the costs. Despite having postponed the hearing yet again, the Judge subsequently in the further hearing, confirmed his error in requesting such a report from the curators which was not at all relevant to the determination of the matter.
On 19 May 2023 the High Court confirmed that the former trustees of the Fund are obliged to pay all the costs of the curatorship, which at the time of the final hearing amounts to in excess of R60 million, primarily arising from extensive litigation that has arisen at the hand of the former Chairman of the board of trustees of the Fund, who plundered the Fund for his own benefit prior to the Fund being placed in curatorship.
The judgment of the High Court is currently the subject matter of applications for leave to appeal which have not yet been heard.
Assheton-Smith Ginsberg is a boutique commercial and litigation firm whose attorneys are dedicated to resolving our clients’ commercial objectives and disputes.
SITE MAP
All Rights Reserved | Assheton-Smith Ginsberg Incorporated