Browsing by Author "Davis, Dennis M"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Dealing with corporate defaulters: curbing the unfettered exercise of criminal law
    (Juta Law, 2010) Davis, Dennis M
    The 1973 Companies Act used the criminal law extensively to enforce numerous provisions of the Act. This process of criminalisation proved ineffective and many provisions of the Act were honoured in the breach rather than the compliance. The drafters of the 2008 Act, following comparative precedent, sought to decriminalise the enforcement mechanisms contained in the Act by introducing a complaint procedure to be investigated by a newly created Companies Commission or the Takeover Panel, as well as introducing compliance notices. This paper examines the international trend to remove criminal sanctions from company law and to introduce alternative means of enforcement. It then proceeds to evaluate the new measures contained in the 2008 Act.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Judge Ackermann and the Jurisprudence of Mourning
    (2008) Davis, Dennis M
    This paper focuses on the manner, in which the Constitutional Court, in its early jurisprudence, set the foundations for the 'transformative' development of South African private law.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    The administration of justice
    (2005) Davis, Dennis M; Marcus, Gilbert J; Klaaren, Jonathan E
    In the 2004 chapter on the Administration of Justice, we took the unusual step of criticising Juta, the publisher of the Annual Survey (at 823-6). We did so because we considered that Juta had behaved improperly in publishing a judgment critical of Jeremy Gauntlett SC but refusing his request to record that the Cape Bar Council had exonerated him of improper conduct. The details of the saga are fully recorded in last year's contribution and need not be repeated. As the publisher of the Annual Survey, Juta asserted a right to respond to the criticism levelled at it (2004 Annual Survey 845). Indeed, it appropriated an entire printed page to do so. Regrettably, we believe that Juta has compounded its error and that its comments cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. In essence, Juta makes three points. First, the judgment on leave to appeal was reported because it 'contradicted a previous assumption that a dissenting judgment in the court a quo meant that leave to appeal would be granted as a matter of course' (ibid). Second, the South African Law Reports contains only such editorial comment as may be necessary to elucidate the published judgments. Third, '[i]t is not incumbent upon the publishers of law reports to annotate the reports in order to vindicate any of the persons who from time to time draw adverse comment from presiding judges' (ibid). None of these arguments withstand scrutiny.