The rights of unmarried fathers in respect of their children were, until July 2007, regulated by the Natural Fathers of Children born out of Wedlock Act of 1997. This entire Act has now been repealed by the Children's Act 38 of 2005. Previously, it was not possible for an unmarried father to acquire automatic rights in respect of his child in terms of the Natural Fathers of Children Born Out of Wedlock Act.
Can a male employee claim maternity leave in terms of a company's leave policy? This vexing question was recently considered by the Labour Court in M I A v State Information Technology Agency (Pty) Ltd  ZALCD 20 (M I A). The court ruled that the employer's refusal to grant a male employee – in a same-sex union and a party to a surrogacy arrangement – the same maternity benefits granted to his female counterparts constituted unfair discrimination in terms of s6 of the Employment Equity Act (55 of 1998) (EEA).
In the recent judgement of National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Intervalve (Pty) Ltd & Others (2015) 35 ILJ 363 (CC), the Constitutional Court was asked to consider whether employers not cited in the initial referral to the CCMA or Bargaining Council and, therefore, not parties to the conciliation process in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act, 1965 (LRA), may be joined in the subsequent dismissal proceedings at the Labour Court.
It is common cause that the right to strike is a constitutionally enshrined right. Section 23 of the Constitution unequivocally states that every employee has this right and it is given effect to in s64 of the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995). Although the right of an employer to 'lockout' is not one which is constitutionally enshrined, it is entrenched in the Labour Relations Act.
Coco Chanel apparently once said "A woman who doesn't wear perfume has no future". Well, it now appears from recent reports emanating from Europe that some perfume ingredients regarded as critical by perfumers, including the widely used natural substance oak moss, which is used in Chanel's famous No. 5 and Christian Dior's cherished Miss Dior fragrances, will have no further future in the industry.
A financial services company is forever asking us to consider 'How much is enough?' in the context of retirement planning. It's a question that we also need to consider in the context of copying, as a result of the judgement in the case Media 24 Books (Pty) Ltd v Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (Western Cape, Judge Gamble, 21 April 2015).
It seems to this writer that trade mark infringement as a cause of action is incrementally converging with passing off through development of the former in the courts, most notably, those of Europe. In the European courts, this development has tended to favour the claimant. However, two recent South African cases illustrate just how such development can favour the defendant and possibly undermine the value of registered trade marks.
You wait ages for a reported judgement concerning "needletime" royalties pursuant to s9A of the Copyright Act, and then two reported decisions come along at approximately the same time. The one was an enquiry by the Copyright Tribunal, and the other a judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal, following an appeal from the Copyright Tribunal.
Judges are not politicians
The US Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision upheld a Florida law that prohibits candidates for judgeships from personally soliciting or receiving funds. The majority judgement opens by saying, "Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot. And the state's decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office. A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favour – and without having personally asked anyone for money." Thirty-one states prohibit this conduct and these laws will be upheld. The four minority judges lamented the effect the judgement would have on freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Erwin Chemerinsky June 4
According to data published in The Washington Post, South Africans have to earn R570 000 after tax in order to be classified as a "Top 1% earner". Tax in SA is 41% so the richest 530 000 people gross, on average, around R1.2m per annum. When put into the category of the world's wealthiest people, anyone earning R102 000 per annum would fall into the top 5% of the world's wealthiest individuals. To be one of the world's richest 1% your net earnings need to be around R9.3m.
In terms of the common law, immovable property vests in the trustee of the insolvent estate of a seller if the estate is sequestrated before transfer of the property to the purchaser. The purchaser of the immovable property runs the risk of losing both the property and any money he or she may have paid.