What Clients Have Said About Working With Us

The Challenge

The client had left employment after a long tenure and was told by the employer that he did not qualify for the employer's matching contribution to his provident fund, because his departure was classified as resignation rather than redundancy. The client disputed this classification and believed the reclassification had been applied retroactively.

What We Did

We reviewed the employment contract, the fund rules, and the internal correspondence leading up to the separation. The documents showed that the departure had been characterised differently in two separate internal communications. We filed in the Labour Court on the basis that the employer's classification was inconsistent with its own contemporaneous records.

The Outcome

The Labour Court found in the client's favour on the classification question. The employer's matching contribution was ordered to be paid in full, with statutory interest from the date of original refusal. The matter concluded approximately 14 months after the initial filing. The client used the Short Counsel Session before committing to the full mandate.

The Challenge

The client had applied for social security pension benefits and been rejected on the grounds that her contribution record did not meet the minimum threshold. She believed the record was incorrect and that contributions from a previous employer had been omitted from the calculation. She had a hearing scheduled and came to us one month before the date.

What We Did

We prepared a position statement setting out the contribution history from all employers over the relevant period, supported by payslip records and employment certificates the client had retained. We walked through the hearing format and the types of questions the committee was likely to ask, so she could respond clearly and in the correct sequence.

The Outcome

The appeals committee upheld her appeal. The contribution records from the prior employer were accepted and included. Her benefit entitlement was recalculated accordingly. The client attended the hearing without in-room representation and presented her position without difficulty.

The Challenge

The client's employer had undergone a major restructuring in which the provident fund was merged into a new entity. The client believed her accumulated benefits had been recalculated incorrectly following the merger, and that the vesting schedule had been reset without her knowledge or consent.

What We Did

During the counsel session, we reviewed the merger documentation, the original fund rules, and the new scheme rules. It became clear that the vesting schedule had in fact been preserved, but the client's calculation had used the wrong base date. We identified the specific provision in the merger documents that confirmed this.

The Outcome

The client used the written summary from the session to correspond directly with her fund administrator, citing the relevant provision. The administrator acknowledged the error and corrected the calculation. No further engagement with Thanin Legal was required. The matter resolved through a single well-documented communication from the client.