•   Hunts End Office Park, Sandton, Johannesburg
  •   +27 11 218 8110
  •   info@disiena.co.za
Search
Login
Di Siena Attorneys - Commercial Litigation | Family Law | Labour Law | Contract Law | Tax Litigation | Criminal Law
  • Home
  • The Firm
    • -About Di Siena Attorneys
    • -About Our Team
    • -Client Testimonials
  • Services
    • -Commercial Litigation
    • -Family Law
    • -Labour Law
    • -Contract Law
    • -Tax Litigation
    • -Criminal Law
  • Differentiators
  • Client Space
    • -Legal News
  • Contact Us

Recent Articles:

  • 11/1/2016
    Judicial Oversight of Emoluments Attachment Orders
  • 7/27/2016
    Termination of Supply and Execution Against Immovable Property For a Prior Owners Debt
  • 7/6/2016
    Warnings Over New Accounting Rules
  • 6/3/2016
    Claims Based on Universal Partnerships in Divorce Matters
  • 5/18/2016
    Automatic Termination Provisions in Employment Contracts
  • 5/11/2016
    Forfeiture of Benefits Upon Divorce and its Constitutionality
  • 3/17/2016
    Statutory Prescribed Rate Of Interest
  • 3/11/2016
    Despite the Voetstoots clause, contracts can be cancelled
  • 3/4/2016
    Are Email Disclaimers of Any Importance?
  • 2/15/2016
    The Duty of Good Faith Towards An Employer And The Duty to Disclose
Subscribe

Forfeiture of Benefits Upon Divorce and its Constitutionality

  • by Di Siena Attorneys

Section 9 of the Divorce Act states that when a decree of divorce is granted on the grounds of the irretrievable break down of a marriage, the court may make an order that the patrimonial benefits of the marriage be forfeited by one party in favour of the other, either wholly or in part, if the court, having regard to the duration of the marriage, the circumstances which gave rise to the breakdown thereof and any substantial misconduct on the party of either of the parties, is satisfied that one party will be unduly benefited should an order for forfeiture not be made.

In the case of MC v JC (2016), the court suggested that section 9(1), which provides for forfeiture on the grounds of substantial misconduct, might be unconstitutional in that it might infringe the right to equality as it placed the party who had committed substantial misconduct in an unfavourable position when it came to the distribution of the patrimonial benefits of the marriage. It was further suggested that the section could deprive a spouse of the right to dignity.

The Court did not decide the issue however ordered the appellant to join the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and the Speaker of Parliament, as the legislative body, as parties to the case, which would then empower the Court to declare the provisions of section 9 invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution.

Designed by Think Aspects : Terms Of Use : Privacy Statement

Quick Contact:

  +27 (0) 11 218 8110
  +27 (0) 86 210 0041
  info@disiena.co.za

Service Index:

  Commercial Litigation
  Family Law
  Labour Law
  Contract Law
  Tax Litigation
  Criminal Law

Social Media:

  

Latest Articles:

  • 11/1/2016
    Judicial Oversight of Emoluments Attachment Orders
  • 7/27/2016
    Termination of Supply and Execution Against Immovable Property For a Prior Owners Debt
Designed by Think Aspects : Terms Of Use : Privacy Statement