Mr Darren Subramanien
Building & Room: Law Building
Mr Darren Subramanien is a Lecturer in the fields of Commercial Law and Corporate Law at the School of Law. He holds a Bachelor and Laws (LLB) degree and a Master of Laws (LLM) from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). Subramanien completed his articles at Venn Nemeth and Hart Attorneys based in Pietermaritzburg. He is an admitted Advocate of the High Court of South Africa. He is currently a member of the Anti-Human Trafficking task team based in KwaZulu-Natal. Subramanien’s areas of expertise are in the fields of Corporate law, Commercial law, Labour law, the law of Contract and Public International law more specifically the law relating to Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery.
- LLM (UKZN)
- Advocate of the High Court of South Africa
- Electronic Monitoring laws
- International Laws on Human Trafficking
Membership of Professional & Other Organisations:
- Bought at a price: Trafficking in human beings – a brief study of the law in South Africa and the United States’.
- The Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Trapping: A discussion of 4 recent cases.
- Nowhere to hide for executives : Fourie v FirstRand bank Ltd
- One for the Asylum Seeker: Bula & others v Minister of Home Affairs & others
- A fresh perspective on South African law relating to the risks posed to employers by the abuse of the internet by employees.
- “Breaking the Silence – Friend of the Court can adduce evidence”
- Unconscionable abuse’ – Section 20 (9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 – Ex parte Gore NO and Others (18127/2012)  ZAWCHC 9 (13 February 2013)”
- Lessons to be learned – ‘own name’ defence- Hotel Cipriani SRL v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Limited  EWHC 3032 (Ch);  EWCA Civ 110;  EWHC 70 (Ch).
- SARS liable for cheques lost or stolen in the post – Stabilpave v SARS (615/12)  ZASCA 128
- ‘Duped’ shareholders may apply for winding up order – Section 81 (1) (e) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 Pinfold v Edge to Edge Global Investments Ltd (8744/13)  ZAKZDHC 52 (27 September 2013)
- A Note on ‘Tacit universal partnerships’ – Recent judgments