Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChitimira, Howard
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-16T09:58:38Z
dc.date.available2017-05-16T09:58:38Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationChitimira, H. 2016. Are the rights of business employees preferred more than the rights of comestic employees? Obiter, 37(2):381-391. [http://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC197438]
dc.identifier.issn1682-5853
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC197438
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/24469
dc.description.abstractThis case note examines, inter alia, the effect of a sequestration order on the debtor and relevant stakeholders such as creditors, shareholders and other interested parties (see s 20 read with s 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 37 and 38 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (hereinafter "the Insolvency Act"). The case note further discusses certain requirements for the application of a sequestration order in South Africa (s 9, read with s 10-12 of the Insolvency Act) in light of the judgment in Gungudoo v Hannover Reinsurance Group Africa ((585/11) [2012] ZASCA 83 (30 May 2012) (hereinafter "Gungudoo case"). This case raised some pertinent questions regarding the application and serving of a sequestration order on the debtor, in terms of the Insolvency Act (s 9(4A), 11(2A) and 11(4)).
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNelson Mandela Metropolitan University
dc.titleAre the rights of business employees preferred more than the rights of comestic employees?
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.researchID25319655 - Chitimira, Howard


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record