Coetzee v Financial Planning Institute of South Africa (Association Incorporated Under Section 21) (1079/2013) [2014] ZASCA 205; 2015 (3) SA 28 (SCA) (28 November 2014) per Swain JA.

The applicant complained that one of the ‘charges’ that formed the basis for her ‘conviction’ before the appeal tribunal, had not been drafted with sufficient particularity.  She further alleged that in the circumstances she had not had any proper hearings. The SCA held that the particulars of the facts forming the basis for the ‘charge’ contained in ‘the charge sheet’ were sufficient to enable her to know what case she had to meet.  Her legal representative could also have asked for further particulars to clarify the position. “The fact that the disciplinary regulations of FPI do not make provision for a request for particulars to a charge, because no provision is even made for a formal charge to be framed, would not in itself justify a refusal to furnish particulars to the charge”.