72B(1)
This section would benefit beneficiaries of insurance policies or pension schemes.

It creates a positive duty but it is not apparent what a breach of that duty constitutes or what consequence would flow from it.

The intended consequence of a failure to exercise reasonable care is liability in terms of sub sect ion (2), then it is not clear why the duty only applies to entities that must be audited.

72B (2)
The flip side of the last point made above is, if subsection 1 only requires entities that must be audited to exercise reasonable care, why should all account holders be liable to be claimed against (assuming ‘person’ includes juristic person)?

Generally, our law traditionally offered little consumer protection and the courts have been slow to fill our individuals over businesses and institutions. This provision appears to worsen, rather than alleviate the consumer's lot.

72 B (3)
The purpose of this subsection is not fully understood as the banks routinely credit accounts but place holds barring drawing against the credit for a fixed period (usually 7 days).

It is not clear when the "one day" starts running. ln any event, that is a very short period to bring about all that is necessary to obtain an interdict.

The words 'as may' be required to obtain do not read well in the context. It is suggested they be substituted with 'for the purpose of obtaining'.

Adv N J Melville
The Banking Adjudicator