LL.M.

Prior to the current constitutional dispensation, the development of South African administrative law was restricted by the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Even in that comparatively 'hostile' environment, review for unreasonableness developed as an aspect of judicial review, and was applied as a check on the exercise of administrative power in certain circumstances. The principle of proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness also developed during this period. With the advent of the new Constitutional dispensation, the framework within which administrative law in South Africa operates became one governed by Constitutional Supremacy. The Rights to Just Administrative Action, including a right to reasonable administrative action, were entrenched in the Constitution. Review for unreasonableness is an important aspect of administrative law in the present Constitutional dispensation as the mechanism for protecting the Constitutional right to reasonable administrative action. Proportionality is an important principle underlying the Bill of Rights as a whole, and it is an important aspect of the right to reasonable administrative action, and of review for unreasonableness. In early 2000, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 ("the PAJA"), was passed by Parliament in fulfillment of the Constitutional requirement to pass legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights to Just Administrative Action. This thesis examines whether or not review for unreasonableness, and proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness, have been meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA, and if they have not been, what potential remedies there might be. This is done by examining the basis of judicial review both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; defining unreasonableness, and proportionality; examining the content of the right to administrative action which is "justifiable in relation to the reasons given" in section 24(d) of the Interim Constitution and the right to reasonable administrative action in terms of section 33(1) of the Final Constitution; examining the application of review for unreasonableness and proportionality by the Courts both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; examining the content of judicial review incorporated in the PAJA and the drafting history of section 6(2) of the PAJA which relates to review for unreasonableness; drawing conclusions regarding whether or not review for unreasonableness and proportionality were meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA; and finally making recommendations with regard to review for unreasonableness and proportionality in light of the provisions of the PAJA.

This thesis analyses the doctrines of the sham and the alter-ego and their application to the law of trusts in South Africa. Following an initial examination of the historical development of the law of trusts in English law and the principles of equity law, the study focuses on the current legal status of the trust inter vivos in South Africa and the similarities to its English forerunner. The work traces the sham doctrine back to its origins in English law, where the term “sham” was first used in the context of fraud and dishonesty in cases involving matters arising from hire-purchase agreements, and explains how it gradually began to find its place in the law of trusts. During the exploration, the work highlights the cornerstone of the sham doctrine’s development, the Snook test, which in effect became the internationally accepted guideline for any sham trust enquiry. In terms of the alter-ego doctrine, the work highlights the birth of the principle in Australian law and the doctrine’s immediate reception into other common law jurisdictions and its resultant development. The growth, maturity and popularity of the doctrines are key to the thesis and, in the course of the investigation, the study provides a legal-comparative analysis of the treatment of the doctrines in the context of trusts against that in other common law countries. The study then shifts its focus to South Africa’s interpretation and application of these doctrines in trust law, and reveals the erroneous judicial development in which the courts have in some instances mistakenly replaced the sham doctrine with the company law doctrine of piercing the corporate veil or, in other instances, have erroneously conflated the two trust doctrines. The results highlight a breach of a fundamental rule observed overseas – the “no half way house” rule, which specifically cautions against South Africa’s chosen direction when allowing the lifting of a trust’s veil. The study closes with suggestions as to how the country could reconcile the problems underlined in the thesis by means of law reform, as well as offering practical advice for settlors, trustees and beneficiaries, the core of which is given in the handbook that accompanies this thesis.

Regulatory bodies must function properly in order for their duties to be performed. The performance of the regulatory body impacts the entire insolvency system. Academics have noted that the Master does not meet the standards of what is expected of an insolvency regulator. The Constitution requires that the power of the state be defined and regulated by the law to ensure the protection of the interests of society. State regulation must comply with the underlying values of the Constitution which also includes the protection of the interests of society. The state has a constitutional duty to protect societal interests, ensure that justice is promoted and ensure that just administrative action is achieved. The Master also has the requisite duty to protect societal interests. Academics have found that the objectives and outcomes of the regulation of insolvency law are still not in line with the Constitution and the values and principles it enshrines. Criticisms of the Master’s office include the lack of resources and institutional capacity, the lack of sufficient investigative powers and insufficient guidelines for the Master when applying their administrative discretion when appointing provisional insolvency practitioners. The lack of regulation of insolvency practitioners in South Africa has also been criticised which has a negative impact on the performance of the insolvency industry. Academics have proposed suggestions to reform the regulation of insolvency law in South Africa. However, none of these suggested proposals have been implemented as yet. The most recent development is the draft policy on the regulation of insolvency practitioners that has been submitted to NEDLAC in 2012. The policy aims to provide guidelines relating to the appointment of provisional insolvency practitioners. The policy also includes a code of conduct which insolvency practitioners must adhere to in order to be appointed as a provisional insolvency practitioner. The policy has the potential to provide sufficient guidelines to the Master when appointing insolvency practitioners. The precise guidelines in the policy reflect the need for transformation of the industry and the need for administratively fair decision making. Thus, the provisions of the proposed policy will be effective in countering the criticisms and transforming the insolvency industry and profession. Foreign jurisdictions have also encountered the problem of lack of regulation of insolvency practitioners. To circumvent this problem some foreign jurisdictions have made the recent development of adopting (or considered adopting) self-regulation or co-regulation of insolvency practitioners. In comparison to South Africa, they have made more progress towards improving the regulation of insolvency practitioners. The result of this is that South Africa is out of step with foreign jurisdictions. It is imperative that South Africa adopts reform initiatives to strengthen the regulation of insolvency law. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2014.