Debtfree Magazine November 2017

have to happen but they cannot unilaterally just force a credit provider to
change interest rates.
The question then arose (and has been dealt with in recent cases like the
Mars case) what happens when the courts are asked by the credit providers
to change the interest rates in a debt review matter? Can they make such
an order? Can they refuse to make the order just because they are unsure
of what to do?
This was the matter set before the Western Cape High Court in the case of
Debt Counsellor Hans Reinhard Pettenburger-Perwald v Vosloo and Others
(including Homechoice, Rainbow finance, RCS, Woolies, Standard Bank,
Foschini, ABSA and African Bank). It related to a case which had gone
to the CT Magistrates Court and been turned away due to the request to
change interest rates. That case had referred to the infamous and often
seemingly misinterpreted Nedbank v Jones ruling.
Arguing the case at High Court for debt counselling firm Debt Therapy
were Attorneys Quintin Zimmermann and Kim Armfield. Both are well
known authorities in local Debt Counselling circles and big supporters of
the industry.
THE RULING
Judges Ndita and Holderness presided over the case and their ruling sets
out a few important points that can serve to bolster related cases.
The ruling talks a lot about the purpose of the National Credit Act and
considers the intention of the legislature for consensual resolution of
disputes and debt.
COURT MATTERS