Abstract

This note focuses on the payment into a trust arrangement in favour of a minor beneficiary as contemplated in terms of section 37C (2) of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956. The aim is to examine the criteria under which the boards of management of pension funds may deprive a guardian the right to administer benefits on behalf of minor beneficiaries. This examination is conducted within the context of the approach adopted by the Pension Funds Adjudicator in four specific determinations decided prior, but relevant, to the amendments to the Pension Funds Act, where the board in each case unlawfully deprived a guardian of the right to administer death benefits in favour of a minor beneficiary. Therefore, the note will discuss four specific determinations and thereafter comment about the criteria to be used by practitioners. The note argues that these determinations should be welcomed because of their progressive interpretation of the Pension Funds Act and for setting an important precedent for pension fund practitioners and boards. In each case, the Pension Funds Adjudicator found a violation of section 37C. The note also criticises the remedy granted in two of the determinations, namely Moralo v Holcim South African Provident Fund, and Mafe v Barloworld (SA) Retirement Fund Respondent, and argues that the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s ruling on these matters was arbitrary and capricious because it disregarded its own precedent in Lebepe v Premier Foods Provident Fund & Others. We therefore submit that the Pension Funds Adjudicator should have ordered the boards in Moralo v Holcim South African Provident Fund, and Mafe v Barloworld (SA) Retirement Fund Respondent to pay all of the benefits directly to the complainants and guardians in those determinations.

Highlights

  • The duty to effect an appropriate mode of payment to minor beneficiaries under section 37C of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 has been the subject of several determinations issued by the Pension Funds Adjudicator

  • The six alternative modes of payment contemplated in the above provision of the Pension Funds Act of 1956 (the Act) are the following: The first is direct payment to a minor beneficiary;3 the second is direct payment to the minor's guardian;4 the third is payment into a deceased member nominated trust;5 the fourth is payment in installments;6 the fifth is payment to a person recognised in law or appointed by a court as the person who is legally responsible for managing the affairs of a beneficiary or meeting his or her daily care needs7; and the sixth, is payment to a beneficiary fund

  • It is important to point out that the Financial Services Laws General Amendment Act 22 of 2008, which was promulgated on 30 September 2008 to amend section 37C of the Act, has introduced a new concept of a pension fund organisation known as a beneficiary fund

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The duty to effect an appropriate mode of payment to minor beneficiaries under section 37C of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (the Act) has been the subject of several determinations issued by the Pension Funds Adjudicator (the Adjudicator). (2) For the purpose of this section, a payment by a registered fund to a member nominated trustee contemplated in the Trust Property Control Act, 1988 (Act No 57 of 1988); a person recognised in law or appointed by a Court as the person responsible for managing the affairs or meeting the daily care needs of a dependant or nominee; or a beneficiary fund, for the benefit of a dependant or nominee contemplated shall be deemed to be a payment to such dependant or nominee. We submit that the Adjudicator should have ordered the boards in Moralo v Holcim South African Provident Fund, and Mafe v Barloworld (SA) Retirement Fund Respondent to pay all the benefits directly to the complainants and guardians in those determinations. 2007/SM unreported; Lebepe v Premier Foods Provident Funds PFA/NP/5947/2005/RM; Moralo v Holcim South African Provident Fund PFA/GA/5400/2005/ZC; Mafe v Barloworld (SA) Retirement Fund Respondent PFA/FS/13033/07/CN

Kowa v Corporate Selection Retirement Fund11
Lebepe v Premier Foods Provident Fund18
Moralo v Holcim South African Provident Fund20
Importance and implication of the determinations
Findings
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.