In the case of Podlas v Cohen and Bryden NNO & Others, there were issues raised concerning section 152 of the Insolvency Act. This section allows the Master of the High Court to conduct an inquiry into the matters of an insolvent estate by summoning individuals to provide information, either in front of the Master, a magistrate, or a public service officer. The applicant, who was called by the Master to participate in such an inquiry, argued that section 152 infringed upon her rights to privacy, freedom of speech (including her right to remain silent), and equality under the law. Justice Spoelstra ruled that an individual who is sequestrated essentially forfeits their right to privacy regarding, at the very least, matters related to their assets prior to sequestration. He stated that the rights of creditors take precedence over those of the insolvent party, and that this is both reasonable and justified in a society that values openness and democracy.
Paraphrase:
Podlas v Cohen and Bryden NNO & Others,13 in relation to section 152 of the Insolvency
Act. Section 152 provides for the Master of the High Court to institute an inquiry
into the a¡airs of the insolvent estate by summoning a person to appear before
him, or before a magistrate or an o⁄cer in the public service, to give information.
In this case, the applicant, who was summoned by the Master to attend such an
inquiry, contended that section 152 violated her right to privacy, freedom of speech
(including her right not to speak), and to equality before the law. Spoelstra J held
that ‘a person who is sequestrated e¡ectively sacri¢ces his or her right to privacy in
regard to, at the least, pre-sequestration patrimonial matters.The rights of creditors
enjoy preference over those of the insolvent and ... it is only reasonable and justi¢-
able in an open and democratic society that this should be so’.1
1 answer
1 answer