Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLaubscher, M.
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-15T12:13:18Z
dc.date.available2016-04-15T12:13:18Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationLaubscher, M. 2015. Cloete Murray and another v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank [2015] ZASCA 39. Potchefstroom electronic law journal (PELJ) = Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad (PER), 18(5):1882-1899 [http://www.nwu.ac.za/p-per/index.html]en_US
dc.identifier.issn1727-3781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/16945
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.nwu.ac.za/p-per/index.html
dc.description.abstractThe approach to the interpretation of statutes once again received attention in the recent case Cloete Murray and another v FirstRand Bank Ltd which was decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court , in this matter, emphasized the fact that when it comes to the interpretation of statutes, the starting point should always be the specific language of the statute, ordinance or section. This should be used together with the context within which the statute, ordinance or section has been created , as well as the purpose or objective of the statute, ordinance or section , and the background within which the statute, ordinance or section has been created. If the language of the specific statute, ordinance or section reflects an inability to support the specific meaning that is being argued, the latter should not be accepted. Section 39 (2) of the Constitution can also only be used to support and foster the values of the Constitution during interpretation if in the process of interpretation it does not unnecessarily burden the language of the specific statute or section. Based on this approach the court rejected the appellants’ appeal for a wider interpretation of section 133 (1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 , and therefore found in favour of the Respondent.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectLanguage of provision as departure point in interpretation of statutes, together with context and purpose of provisionen_US
dc.subjectSection 39(2) of Constitutionen_US
dc.subjectInterpretation of section 133(1) of Companies Acten_US
dc.subjectEnforcement action and cancellation of an agreementen_US
dc.subjectLegal proceedings during business rescue practiceen_US
dc.titleCloete Murray and another v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank [2015] ZASCA 39en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.researchID10075119 - Laubscher, Michael Casparus


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record