What should the board of management of a persion fund consider when dealing with death claims involving surviving cohabitants?
Abstract
This note argues that the Adjudicator’s determination Hlathi should be welcomed by the
pension funds industry because it clarifies the uncertain legal position that emerged in
the wake of the judgment in Volks. It comments on the requirements in and implications
of Hlathi for the pension funds industry and pension beneficiaries, and criticises the
Adjudicator's determination as failing to expressly incorporate the emotional and
intimate or sexual bond requirement in the new factual dependency test. It argues that
while Hlathi appears to have reverted to the legal position that prevailed prior to Van der
Merwe, the new test does not expressly incorporate the relevant requirement that a
relationship of mutual dependence involves an emotional and intimate or sexual bond.
As a result, the note is critical of this omission because it creates a potentially new
uncertainty in the law, and calls on the current Adjudicator to clarify this matter.