The new Conveyancing Fee Guideline for 2018 came into operation on 1 June 2013.
Our Marias are but bakkies, designed for freight, with a metal rear top: why should a detainee (often not yet guilty of anything) have fewer rights of safe transport than anyone else? The High Court in Limpopo has been asked for an order that the SAPS uses vehicles fitted with seats and safety belts when transporting detainees.
UniZulu has been re-accredited for LLB education. That institution speaks of turnarounds, tireless improvements, quality standards and so on, having received full re-accreditation for its LLB programme. Yawn.
Lawyers are at least jokingly, often reviled. This is understandable as especially litigation can be quite an abrasive process. However, the latest report on sky-high legal fees incurred by all and sundry does our profession little good. There is reason for such concern; some legal fees are truly abusive. I had mentioned a leading Gauteng legal practice that sought to charge R2m for conveyancing work which was admittedly a big deal, but certainly not that big! One of the seven deadly sins that Mahatma Gandhi had said would destroy the world was commerce without morality; very often caused by the need to meet targets necessary for bling presence.
Polyamorous, distinguished from bigamous and polygamous; the new reality: a Canadian court recognised a relationship between two men and one woman to be such as would require parental rights for all three.
The latest Constitutional Court judgement deals with vicarious liability for servants of the state: an off-duty policeman had shot the applicant and then himself. The High Court held the state was vicariously liable on the basis that the issuance of dangerous weapons created a risk for members of the public which was closely linked to the damages at hand. The SCA differed, saying that the mere fact that the offence was committed with a police firearm was not sufficient to justify imposing vicarious liability on the State. The applicant took this to the Constitutional Court which held that the mere application of an established legal test does not amount to a constitutional issue and rejected the application.