BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ThinkLegal - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:ThinkLegal
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://thinklegal.co.za
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ThinkLegal
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Africa/Johannesburg
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:SAST
DTSTART:20250101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Africa/Johannesburg:20260930T170000
DTEND;TZID=Africa/Johannesburg:20260930T200000
DTSTAMP:20260911T084519
CREATED:20260903T104619Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260903T104619Z
UID:3650-1790787600-1790798400@thinklegal.co.za
SUMMARY:Section 7(3) Redistribution Claims in Divorce: Entitlement\, Proof\, and Resolution
DESCRIPTION:A practical 3-hour session on one of the most significant (re)developing areas of South African matrimonial property law \nSection 7(3) redistribution claims have moved firmly back into the spotlight. \nThe judgment of the Constitutional Court in EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs materially changed the reach of the redistribution remedy and reintroduced it as alive-and-well in South African Law. Courts are once again being called upon to determine difficult questions concerning entitlement\, contribution\, valuation\, quantification and fairness in the application of sections 7(3)\, 7(4) and 7(5) of the Divorce Act. \nA redistribution claim is a statutory remedy. A claimant must bring the claim within the ambit of section 7(3)\, establish the contribution contemplated in section 7(4)\, and persuade the court that it is just and equitable to make a redistribution order. The extent of any redistribution must then be determined with reference to the considerations set out in section 7(5). \nFor practitioners\, the real challenge lies in understanding when the remedy is available\, what must be pleaded and proved\, how the value and composition of the respective estates affect the enquiry\, and how the dispute may ultimately be resolved. \nThe central questions are: \nWhen is a spouse entitled to claim? \nWhat must actually be proved? \nHow should the claim be analysed and quantified? \nWhere settlement is possible\, how can the dispute be mediated intelligently and realistically? \nThis three-hour session examines section 7(3) claims through three practical lenses: \nLENS 1: ENTITLEMENT \nWhat does the law permit? \nWe begin with the legislative and case-law basis of the remedy. \nThe session considers sections 7(3)\, 7(4) and 7(5) of the Divorce Act\, the historical limitation of redistribution claims\, and the effect of the Constitutional Court judgment in EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs on the availability of the remedy. \nParticular attention will be given to the distinction between a redistribution claim and other patrimonial claims and remedies arising on divorce\, including accrual\, forfeiture of patrimonial benefits and spousal maintenance. \nWe will examine: \n\nwhen a claim under section 7(3) is competent;\nthe effect of EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs;\nwhich spouses may now institute redistribution claims;\nthe requirement of direct or indirect contribution;\nfinancial and non-financial contributions;\nthe considerations contemplated in sections 7(4) and 7(5);\nthe discretion afforded to the court; and\nthe limits of the redistribution remedy.\n\nThe objective is to establish the applicable law before turning to the practical question: how does one prove the claim? \nLENS 2: PROOF \nHow does a redistribution claim actually work? \nA section 7(3) enquiry requires considerably more than a comparison of the net values of the spouses’ respective estates. \nPractitioners must consider the history of the marriage\, identify the contributions relied upon\, determine the nature and value of the assets and liabilities in the respective estates\, and examine the relationship between the alleged contributions and the maintenance or increase of the estate of the other spouse. \nThis part of the training moves from the legal principles to the practical preparation and conduct of the claim. \nWe will consider: \n\nwhat the claimant must plead and prove;\nthe onus resting upon the claimant;\nidentifying the estate against which redistribution is sought;\nestablishing the nature and extent of the respective spouses’ estates;\ndirect and indirect contributions;\nhomemaking\, parenting\, career sacrifice and support of the other spouse’s career;\ncontributions which saved expenses or assisted in the maintenance or growth of the other spouse’s estate;\nthe history of asset and wealth accumulation during the marriage;\nfinancial disclosure;\ndiscovery and requests for further information and documentation;\nassets and interests held through companies\, trusts and other structures;\nvaluation of immovable property\, businesses\, shares and other interests;\npension and retirement fund interests;\nthe use of expert evidence;\nevidential difficulties where records are incomplete or unavailable;\npleading a redistribution claim;\nopposing a redistribution claim;\nidentifying claims which in substance seek an equal division of estates without establishing the requirements of section 7(3); and\nmoving from proof of contribution to the formulation of an appropriate redistribution order.\n\nThe focus is on properly investigating\, pleading\, proving and evaluating the claim from the outset. \nLENS 3: RESOLUTION \nHow do you mediate a section 7(3) dispute? \nRedistribution disputes are well suited to mediation where the relevant legal\, factual and financial issues have first been properly identified. \nThey frequently involve competing versions of the parties’ respective contributions\, incomplete financial disclosure\, disagreements concerning the value or ownership of assets\, complex asset-holding structures and considerable uncertainty as to the outcome of litigation. \nThey may also involve fundamentally different perceptions of the value of financial and non-financial contributions made during the marriage. \nThe mediator must create a process in which the parties are able to negotiate with a proper understanding of the legal issues\, the available evidence\, the composition and value of the estates\, and the risks associated with continued litigation. \nThis part of the session considers: \n\nthe legal principles a mediator needs to understand when dealing with a section 7(3) claim;\nensuring sufficient financial disclosure before substantive negotiations take place;\nidentifying agreed and disputed assets and liabilities;\nidentifying the contributions alleged by each party;\ndealing with competing versions concerning contribution;\nseparating the question of entitlement from the question of the extent of any redistribution;\nassisting parties to assess litigation risk without assuming the role of an adjudicator;\nevaluating competing settlement proposals;\nsettlement by reference to a percentage of an estate or the transfer of identified assets;\ncash payments and transfers of property;\nliquidity and the practical implementation of settlement proposals;\npension and retirement fund interests;\nthe relationship between redistribution and spousal maintenance;\nthe use of valuers\, accountants and other experts where necessary;\ndealing with cases in which one party has substantially greater access to or knowledge of the financial information;\nprogressing settlement where particular valuations or items of disclosure remain outstanding; and\nrecording settlement terms in a manner that is clear\, enforceable and capable of incorporation into the divorce order.\n\nWhy this training matters \nThe law relating to redistribution claims has changed materially. \nThe judgment of the Constitutional Court in EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs extended the practical relevance of section 7(3)\, and subsequent judgments are beginning to address how the remedy is to operate in practice. \nPractitioners must therefore be able to identify when a redistribution claim is legally competent and assess whether the facts and available evidence support it. \nA poorly founded claim can result in lengthy and expensive litigation where the requirements of sections 7(3) and 7(4) have not been established. \nA properly prepared claim requires careful consideration of the applicable legal principles\, the contributions relied upon\, the evidence available to prove those contributions\, the composition and value of the respective estates\, and the factors relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. \nThe same considerations are central to meaningful settlement negotiations and mediation. \nWho should attend? \nThis session is particularly relevant to: \n\nFamily law attorneys;\nAdvocates practising in matrimonial law;\nDivorce and family mediators;\nCandidate legal practitioners;\nOther family dispute resolution practitioners who regularly encounter patrimonial disputes; and\nPractitioners involved in the negotiation and settlement of divorce matters.\n\nWhat you will leave with \nBy the end of the session\, participants should be better equipped to: \n\nidentify when a section 7(3) redistribution claim is competent;\ndistinguish redistribution from accrual\, forfeiture and maintenance claims;\napply sections 7(3)\, 7(4) and 7(5) to the facts of a matter;\nidentify what must be pleaded and proved to establish a claim;\nassess direct and indirect contributions;\nidentify the evidence required to prove or oppose a claim;\napproach financial disclosure\, discovery and valuation effectively;\nassess the composition and value of the relevant estates;\nunderstand the considerations relevant to the extent of any redistribution;\nassess litigation risk more realistically; and\nmediate and negotiate the settlement of redistribution disputes more effectively.
URL:https://thinklegal.co.za/event/section-73-redistribution-claims-in-divorce/
LOCATION:Online Teams Meeting
CATEGORIES:Webinars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://thinklegal.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Section-73-Redistribution-Claims-in-Divorce.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR