MRL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2023

MRL3701 Assignment 1 (ANSWERS) Semester % TRUSTED workings, explanations and solutions. For assistance call or us on . QUESTION: 10 Marks See the table below and match the three columns to answer the following questions. You must therefore answer the question as follows on your answer sheet (see ONLY AN EXAMPLE below) and do so for every question (a) – (e). (a) 1. Case name: Ex Parte Snooke 2014 (5) SA 426 (FB) (1/2 mark) 2. Ratio decidendi of the case: This was an application for rehabilitation. Several cases of abuses of the sequestration process. Attorneys should limit their fees and expenses to those stated in application and trustees may not consent to taxation of attorney's bill without it. The effects of rehabilitation in terms of s 124(3), if the order is granted, is to reinvest insolvent with his estate. (1 mark) 3. Area of Insolvency Law applicable: Rehabilitation and abuse of sequestration proceedings. (1/2 mark) Case Name: Ratio decidendi of the case: Area of Insolvency Law applicable: (a) Estate Wege v Strauss 2932 AD 76 A trust cannot be a debtor and can therefore not be sequestrated. Section 29 Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (b) Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C) Although a betting transaction was an invalid agreement and thus unenforceable in a court of law, payment of such a wavering debt was not a disposition without value. Friendly Sequestrations (c) Pretorius’ Trustee v Van Blommenstein 1949 (1) SA 267 (O) Regarding the requirement that three-fourths in value and in number of the creditors who proved their claims, must accept the offer of composition to render it valid and enforceable. Can a trust be a debtor and therefore be sequestrated? (d) Magnum Financial Holdings (PTY) Ltd (In Litigation) v Summerly and Another NNO 1984 (1) SA 160 (W) A court must determine whether the defence of “ordinary course of business” and “intention to prefer” is applicable in each case. Section 26 Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (e) Prinsloo en ‘n Ander v Van Zyl NO 1967 (1) SA 581 (T) In these type of sequestrations where the creditors are not at an arm length, the court highligted that these types of orders should not automatically be refused purely based on the application but one should at least clearly establich a particular emphasis on the requirement of “advantage of creditors“. Section 119 Insolvency Act 24 of 1936