Financial distress no excuse for not paying over pension fund contributions
The court judgment sends a clear message to companies and their directors that they cannot use pension fund contributions for anything else.
A company's financial distress is not an excuse not to pay over employees' pension fund contributions and directors are personally liable for unpaid pension contributions deducted from employees' salaries, according to a judgment of the Western Cape High Court.
The Engineering Industries Pension Fund took a company, Installair, to court to recover outstanding pension and provident fund contributions from May to July 2020 and hold the company's directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions.
According to Nicolette van Vuuren, partner and Tshepiso Tshshonga, trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel, the fund relied on these provisions of the Pension Funds Act:
section 13A(1), which mandates employers pay employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund in full and on time
section 13A(7), which provides for the personal liability of individuals responsible for ensuring the employer's compliance with its obligations
section 13A(8), which imposes personal liability on directors who are regularly involved in the management of the employer's financial affairs and
section 13A(9), which requires retirement funds to notify employers in writing of individuals who may be held personally liable, read with Regulation 33, promulgated under the Pension Funds Act but which was since repealed.
The aim of the Pension Funds Act is to protect the retirement savings and financial security of members by ensuring that contributions are properly deducted, managed and paid over to the pension fund.
ALSO READ: Councils take pension billions
Pension fund went after directors as company was in liquidation
Installair was in liquidation and therefore the fund did not ask for any relief against the company, but instead against the company's directors. Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say the directors acknowledged that the company deducted pension and provident fund contributions from employees' salaries but failed to pay them over to the fund.
The directors used the deducted amounts to subsidise employee salaries due to the company's financial distress and the directors argued that the failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond their control. They contended that they did not act recklessly or negligently.
Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say one of the directors also claimed that section 13A(8) of the Pension Fund Act should not apply to her, as she was not involved in the financial affairs of the company. The directors also argued that liability under section 13(8) arises only where directors are unable to meet statutory obligations due to circumstances within their control and where there has been reckless or negligent conduct, which they denied.
ALSO READ: Pension fund contribution arrears 'serious crime against humanity'
Court finds directors clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations
However, the High Court found that the directors were actively involved in managing the company's financial affairs and clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations under the Pension Fund Act. The court described the directors' defences as 'far-fetched' and 'untenable' and rejected them summarily.
The court accordingly held the directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions, ordering them to pay the outstanding amounts, together with accrued interest. In addition, the court dismissed the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified the company's failure to pay over contributions.
Van Vuuren and Tshshonga note that the period in question (January to March 2020) preceded the national lockdown, which was only imposed on 26 March 2020. They say that as the company was fully operational during this time, the pandemic could not be used as an excuse for non-compliance.
ALSO READ: Only two employers convicted since 2019 for not paying their workers' pension fund contributions
Directors had no viable defence and must pay up themselves
With no valid defence presented, the court held the directors liable for the outstanding pension fund contributions. The court also emphasised that a failure to issue an order in favour of vulnerable groups would constitute a dereliction of its constitutional duty.
In addition, the court noted that the increase in withdrawal claims under the two-pot retirement system highlighted persistent non-compliance with pension contribution obligations, a trend that threatens the financial security of retirees.
Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say this case serves as a strong reminder that enforcement of pension fund compliance is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to protect employee's long-term financial interests.
'We urge employers and particularly retirement funds to implement robust financial controls and regularly review compliance policies to ensure that all pension contributions are paid promptly and accurately, in accordance with the Pension Fund Act and the rules of the relevant fund.
'This will go a long way to shield directors and companies from severe legal penalties and reputational harm. Even in the face of financial difficulty, diverting retirement fund contributions for other uses is strictly prohibited. Directors cannot rely on financial distress as a defence to escape personal liability for unpaid contributions.'
ALSO READ: Two-pot retirement system: Nothing for thousands of pension fund members
Case underscores there is no way out of paying over pension contributions
This case underscores a crucial legal principle that employers cannot avoid their pension obligations through delay tactics or legal posturing, Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say. 'The courts have made it clear that accountability in fulfilling statutory duties is non-negotiable. Companies that ignore these obligations do so at their peril.
'In today's challenging economic climate, many companies face financial distress and even insolvency. However, recent legal developments make it clear that financial hardship is no excuse for failing to meet statutory obligations, particularly the obligation to pay over retirement fund contributions deducted from employees' salaries.'
NOW READ: FSCA lists 2 330 employers with pension fund contributions in arrears
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Transnet secures three-year wage agreement with union, promoting stability and growth for workers
After lengthy talks Transnet settled wage negotiations with the United National Transport Union last week. The settlement is for three years and will see workers paid 6% increases annually, including on housing and medical allowances. Transnet has confirmed that it has concluded a wage agreement with the United National Transport Union (Untu) that will be valid for the next three years. Under this agreement workers will receive an annual increase of 6% for the next three years. Untu secretary-general Cobus van Vuuren said the salary increase agreement reflected the power of collective bargaining in improving the conditions of the working class. 'The three-year agreement also ensures much-needed labour stability during a critical period as Transnet works to rebuild its operations, restore service reliability, and regain stakeholder confidence. As the majority union representing the voices of more than 26,000 employees at Transnet, Untu confirms that this newly signed agreement supersedes the previous agreement signed between Transnet and the minority union Satawu,' he said. Earlier in the negotiations the two unions were unable to present Transnet with a joint salary demand. Van Vuuren said the new salary increase agreement between Untu and Transnet placed a strong emphasis on job security by including a firm non-mandatory retrenchment clause, which was one of the key demands tabled by Untu throughout the negotiations process. The agreement provides for a 6% annual increase and a 6% increase for housing allowances and medical subsidies. 'Untu acknowledges the role of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration as the highest dispute resolution body, which intervened to avert industrial action that would have derailed Transnet's recovery and turnaround plan and collapsed an already fragile South African economy,' Van Vuuren said. Transnet said the finalisation of the three-year wage agreement provided labour stability. This, Transnet said, 'will enable the company to focus on its immediate strategic priorities of improving operational and financial performance, while positioning the organisation for future growth, thereby ensuring job security and economic growth'. DM
IOL News
14-06-2025
- IOL News
Adjudicator criticises pension fund for ignoring complaints
The South African Local Authorities Pension Fund faces scrutiny after the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator reported it to the FSCA for failing to respond to multiple complaints, raising concerns over its compliance and fiduciary duties. Image: Pexels The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA) has come down hard on the South African Local Authorities Pension Fund for ignoring repeated requests for information, in what it describes as serious non-compliance with regulatory obligations. Adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane reported the fund to the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA) after it failed to respond to multiple enquiries from her office in the course of investigating a complaint. 'There were several complaints against the fund,' Lukhaimane says. 'And the lack of response from the fund reflects a disregard for the Pension Funds Act, its rules, and the best interests of members.' The complaint in question was brought by a former South African Police Service employee who believed his withdrawal benefit had been improperly calculated. He asked the OPFA to determine whether his employer had consistently paid overall contributions to the fund, a factor that would directly affect the value of his benefit. Despite being called upon to respond, the fund failed to file any response to the OPFA's request. As a result, the adjudicator proceeded to determine the matter without their input. Lukhaimane described the fund's behaviour as 'intolerable,' saying it suggested multiple contraventions of the law and showed poor standards of fiduciary duty. 'The fund's unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint could not be entertained as it prejudiced the complainant,' she added. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Noting the volume of cases her office handles, Lukhaimane stressed the importance of timely cooperation. 'It is, therefore, incumbent upon pension funds and administrators to ensure that enquiries from the Adjudicator are properly and adequately responded to. This is especially so since boards of funds and Principal Officers are required to be fit and proper.' She says: 'The failure to respond to enquiries and to timeously response to complaints by such persons is a failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities. It impedes the Adjudicator's ability to deliver on its mandate, and if allowed to continue, will render the Adjudicator ineffective. It also constitutes a barrier to the complainant being able to have their complaint properly resolved.' Lukhaimane also raised concerns about systemic issues within the fund's administration. 'When the administrative wheels of a fund come off, it starts with the fund's failure to respond to complaints that require data from its administration system relating to payment of contributions.' She named the fund's administrator, Fairsure Administration (Pty) Ltd, saying: 'All indications are that there is an issue with the receipt and allocation of contributions. It is, therefore, imperative that the FSCA acts with haste to avoid further prejudice to members.' In her ruling, Lukhaimane ordered the fund to reconcile all contributions and advise the employer of any shortfalls. The fund must also furnish the complainant with a full breakdown of both his contributions and withdrawal benefits. In addition, the employer has been ordered to pay any outstanding contributions to the fund, which in turn must credit the complainant for any shortfall. PERSONAL FINANCE
The Citizen
13-06-2025
- The Citizen
Adjudicator reports Local Authorities Pension Fund for misconduct
The Pension Funds Adjudicator is holding the pension fund for local authorities accountable for not paying over pension contributions. The Pension Funds Adjudicator has severely criticised the South African Local Authorities Pension Fund for failing to respond to repeated requests for information and has reported the fund's misconduct to the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA). Muvhango Lukhaimane, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, says her office has received several complaints against the fund, and she believes the fund's lack of response reflects a disregard for the Pension Funds Act, its rules, and the best interests of its members. She has reported the fund to FSCA to act against its officials. ALSO READ: What happens to your pension fund when you pass away? Complaint to Pension Fund Adjudicator about withdrawal benefit One of the complaints she received was from someone employed by the South African Police Service, who was unhappy with the amount received as his withdrawal benefit when he stopped working. He requested that the Office of the Adjudicator investigate whether the employer had failed to make all required contributions to the fund on his behalf, as this would affect the amount he could withdraw. When the office of the Adjudicator contacted the fund for a response to the complaint, the fund failed to file a response, forcing the Adjudicator to proceed with determining the matter. Lukhaimane said in her determination that the fund's non-compliance is 'intolerable' as it points to several contraventions of the Pension Funds Act and also reflects poor conduct of duty. 'The fund's unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint could not be entertained as it prejudiced the complainant. My office deals with high volumes of complaints, which need to be disposed of expeditiously to properly fulfil its mandate. 'Therefore, it is mandatory for pension funds and administrators to ensure that they respond properly and adequately to enquiries from my office, especially since boards of funds and principal officers are required to be fit and proper.' ALSO READ: Councils take pension billions Failure to respond is failure to uphold fiduciary responsibilities Lukhaimane says the fund's failure to respond to enquiries and respond timeously to complaints is a failure to uphold the officials' fiduciary responsibilities. 'It inhibits my office's ability to deliver on its mandate and, if it is allowed to continue, will render the Adjudicator's office ineffective. 'It also constitutes a barrier to complainants' being able to have their complaints properly resolved,' said Lukhaimane. She said that when the administrative wheels of a fund come off, it starts with the fund's failure to respond to complaints that require data from its administration system relating to payment of contributions. 'The administrator in this instance is Fairsure Administration (Pty) Ltd, and all indications are that there is an issue with the receipt and allocation of contributions. It is therefore imperative that the FSCA acts with haste to avoid further prejudice to members.' ALSO READ: Two-pot retirement system: Nothing for thousands of pension fund members Pension Funds Adjudicator's acts on non-compliance Lukhaimane ordered the fund in her determination to reconcile the contributions received and advise the employer of any outstanding contributions. In addition, the fund was ordered to provide the complainant with a breakdown of his contributions and a breakdown of his withdrawal benefit. She also ordered his employer to pay any arrears to the fund. The fund was ordered to pay the complainant any outstanding fund credit due to the arrears for contributions. The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA) is a statutory body established to resolve disputes in a procedurally fair, economical and expeditious manner. The adjudicator's office investigates and determines complaints of abuse of power, maladministration, disputes of fact or law and employer dereliction of duty regarding pension funds. If you have a question or a complaint, visit the Adjudicators website at call it on 012 346 1738 or email Enquiries@ NOW READ: Pension Fund complaints surge amid trust and accountability concerns
