Search

The most indispensable means of change in contemporary business society is technology because it offers convenience to both businesses and their clients. Almost every business has been influenced by technology. Traditional corporate governance systems have been affected as technology has ceased to be a mere business enabler but is now a source of a company's future potential opportunities. The infusion of corporate governance and technology has been quite slow in South Africa. This may either be attributed to the fact that it is costly to do so, at least in the short term, or that company directors in South Africa do not yet trust technological measures with corporate decision-making input. Consequently, the impact of decision support technology on corporate entities and their governance has received less academic interest in South Africa than in developed countries. This article seeks to discuss the integration and reliance on technology to enhance corporate governance principles in developing countries like South Africa. The article also discusses the practical challenges and the benefits to be anticipated by directors in South Africa when they integrate technology in decision making to enhance their independence and accountability.

The judiciary-exclusive role to allow or deny the commencement or continuation of contemporary derivative litigation is one of the critical aspects of such proceedings. Before the 2006 codification, derivative actions were brought under the common law as exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189. However, after realising intolerable deficiencies in the common law, the United Kingdom Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommended that there should be a new derivative procedure that met modern demands. This resulted in a statutory derivative remedy which can be activated in terms of Chapter 1 of Part 11 of the UK Companies Act, 2006. The effectiveness of legislative regulatory devices generally, and commercial law-related ones in particular, may to a greater extent depend on judicial interpretation and application. A conservative and literal interpretive approach that is purpose-neutral will significantly undermine the prospect of the current derivative remedy regime’s achieving the intended policy objectives. To that end, this contribution examines several court decisions handed down after the enactment of the 2006 Act and spanning over a period of approximately ten years. Ultimately, it will be considered whether the leave requirement in English derivative litigation is proving to be an invaluable and indispensable procedural prerequisite or an implausible barrier to honest litigants.