New COIDA regulations effective immediately; SCA settles trust-deed intention rule

Government Gazette No. 54273 (Regulation Gazette No. 11951) publishes four sets of regulations under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, all effective on publication. The first introduces a 3-year prescription period for claims reported under sections 38, 39, 43, 44 and 65, running from the date of accident, diagnosis or treatment. The second sets out inspection, compliance and enforcement procedures with a 14-day notice requirement. The third imposes comprehensive rehabilitation, reintegration and return-to-work obligations on employers — including the appointment of an employee health and wellness representative and mandatory retention of rehabilitation and return-to-work reports for not less than 30 years. The fourth creates a mandatory registration regime for third parties transacting with the Compensation Fund, with 24-month registration validity and an annual renewal window from 1 March to end of June. Separately, the gazette extends the Furniture Bargaining Council collective bargaining fee agreement to 30 April 2027 and amends the Debt Collectors Act regulations to increase the maximum recoverable fee cap from R1,023 to R1,225.

Beneficiaries and a minority trustee of a discretionary family trust applied under s 13 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 to terminate the trust. They argued that the founder had verbally expressed a wish decades after execution of the trust deed that the trust assets should vest, and that the trust provisions conferring sole discretion on trustees to determine the vesting date hampered the trust's objectives and prejudiced beneficiaries. The majority trustees opposed, pointing to the trust's illiquid asset base and financial position as making distribution impracticable.

The court held: The SCA dismissed the appeal. It held that the relevant founder intention is that reflected in the trust deed — not what the founder may have said decades later — and that a founder has no power to alter the trust deed by informal verbal expression. The impugned provisions (conferring sole discretion on trustees to determine the vesting date) neither hampered the trust objectives nor prejudiced beneficiaries; the real cause of the appellants' dissatisfaction was the trust's financial position, not the trust provisions themselves. The Court confirmed that trust termination under s 13 is an extraordinary last-resort remedy and that the anchor jurisdictional factor inquiry is intertwined with the s 13(a), (b) and (c) requisites, following Snyman v De Kooker.

Legal impact: Settles at SCA level that for s 13 TPCA variation or termination applications, the founder's intention is anchored in the trust deed and cannot be supplemented or overridden by subsequent verbal wishes. This significantly constrains the evidence base available to applicants seeking trust variation. It also confirms that beneficiaries of a discretionary trust have no right to insist that trustees exercise their discretion to declare a vesting date. Practitioners advising on trust variation litigation must now treat the trust deed as the definitive source of founder intention, and estate planners should ensure that any change in a founder's wishes is formalised through proper amendment mechanisms.