Jordan Dias Candidate Attorney

JORDAN DIAS
Candidate Attorney

LLB (WITS)

Jordan obtained her LLB degree at the University of the Witwatersrand. Her legal interests lie in commercial litigation and drafting, contractual disputes and labour related matters.

+27 (0) 11 448 9742
dias@schindlers.co.za

Article written by S’negugu Dlamini, Candidate Attorney, checked by Jordan Dias, Associate and relesed by Chantelle-Gladwin Wood, Senior Partner at Schindlers Attorneys. 06 April 2022 Introduction Maintenance is the legal obligation to provide another person, for example, a minor child, with housing, food, clothing, education, and medical care, or with the means that are necessary
Article written by Avayakta Sing, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys. BACKGROUND In her capacity as the mother and natural guardian of the minor child (herein after referred to as “B”), the Plaintiff instituted action against the Defendant (City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality). According to the Plaintiff, B was
Article written by Avyakta Sink, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys 31 January 2022 BACKGROUND The Applicant in this case approached the Labour Court for default judgment following her dismissal for misconduct by the Respondent on 14 October 2014. The Applicant disputed the fairness of his dismissal and referred
Schindlers Attorneys National School Nutrition Program Article
Article written by Avyakta Sing, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys 28 December 2021 BACKGROUND Schools in South Africa were closed for three months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the National School Nutrition Program (NSNP) came to a halt. This program provides daily meals to learners
Schindlers Attorneys Case summary
Article written by Celeste Frank, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys 13 December 2021 BACKGROUND Mr. Pillay, the Applicant sought the final sequestration of the Respondents’ joint estate Being Mr Imani, the First Respondent, who was married in community of property to Mrs. Imani, the Second Respondent. The First
Schindlers Attorneys South Africa
Article written by Celeste Frank, Candidate Attorney, checked by Jordan Dias, Associate, and released by Charlotte Clarke, Senior Associate at Schindlers Attorneys (Solicitor of England and Wales) 23 November 2021 BACKGROUND The Applicant is the ex-husband of the First Respondent, and the Second and Third Respondents are children born of the marriage between the Applicant
Article written by Angela Paschalides, Candidate Attorney, checked by Jordan Dias, Associate and released by Charlotte Clarke, Senior Associate at Schindlers Attorneys (Solicitor of England and Wales) 22 November 2021 Background The High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Commercial Court, Business and Property Courts) (the “Court”) heard an application by Devas Multimedia Private
Article written by Alisha Naik, Candidate Attorney, checked by Jordan Dias, Associate and released by Pierre van der Merwe, Partner at Schindlers Attorneys 12 November 2021 INTRODUCTION Whilst South Africans possess the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, it is important to remember that this right is limited. When one exceeds the limitations imposed,
Article written by Snazo Tuswa, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys. 28 September 2021 BACKGROUND On 16 September 2016, Summit Financial Partners (Pty) Ltd (“the First Respondent”) lodged a complaint against Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd (“the Appellant”) with the National Credit Regulator (“the Third Respondent”), alleging that the Appellant
Article written by Celeste Frank, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Jordan Dias, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys. 28 September 2021 BACKGROUND On 15 March 2015, Sasol South Africa (Pty) Ltd as an employer (“the Appellant”) and Murray & Roberts Limited as a contractor (“the Respondent”), concluded a construction contract in terms of which the Respondent