Debtfree Magazine Sept 2017

COURT MATTERS
Read The Jones Ruling Here:
Norris
In a similar case involving Nedbank (v Norris), the bank was concerned that the granted
court order for debt review did not make provision for insurance payments on their debt
and totally removed all interest on their account without consent. As a result, the banks
appeal in that case also lead to a ruling which caused confusion about reducing interest
with or without consent.
Jones Matter Causes Trouble At Court
Soon Debt Counsellors had to get sneaky and began to leave out any reference to interest
rates in the debt review applications to court. Rather than mention the interest rate and
repayment amount, they now simply mentioned the repayment amount and the term it
would take to repay the debt. This then involved trusting that the credit providers would
later stick to whatever rate agreement was made behind the scenes and leaving it out of
the court papers. While this worked in some matters, it did not in others where the courts
felt trapped and still refused to grant orders. The issue then began to grow, spreading to
more and more courts and urgently needed to be addressed somehow.
Mars
Debt Counselling firm, Octogen had a debt review matter for their client Mz Mars which
was affected by the Jones ruling and interpretation of the local courts. Octogen then
decided to appeal the Mars matter when the court used the Jones ruling as a reason not
to grant the application.
The Octogen case was recently heard in the High Court in Cape Town and the positive
ruling undoes some of the damage done by the Jones and Norris matters. The case was
heard and ruled on by three High Court Judges which gives it extra clout in legal circles
and should now guide all Western Cape Magistrate courts who were concerned about
what the ruling in the Jones matter actually meant.