Financial Services Board v PB & Discovery (20207/2014) [2015] ZASCA 96 (1 June 2015) per Ponnan JA (Cachalia and Leach JJA and Dambuza and Gorven AJJA concurring)
On 31 May 2012 PB purported to terminate his employment with Discovery on 24 hours’ notice. The next day he started working for Old Mutual. The same day Discovery demanded the return of all client files. There was a meeting shortly thereafter and then PB was telephonically informed that Discovery had reported to the Registrar of Financial Services Providers (the Registrar) that he ‘did not comply with the requirements of the FAIS for continued appointment as a representative of [Discovery]’.
In upholding an appeal by PB against being debarred the Supreme Court of Appeal found that none of the principles of natural justice were observed by Discovery in their dealings with him. “If anything, it appears that he was positively misled as to the true nature and purpose of his meeting . . . “.
In effect Discovery acted unlawfully and they had to pay PB’s costs.