[1] The High Court upheld the applicant's contention, declaring the time-limitation clause to be inconsistent with the Constitution and dismissing the special plea.

Crucially, in this calculus 'public policy' now derives from the founding constitutional values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms, non-racialism and non-sexism.While it is therefore necessary to recognise the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, the courts may decline the enforcement of a time-limitation clause if its implementation would result in unfairness or would be unreasonable for being contrary to public policy.

[7] The test for reasonableness, the court found, was whether or not the clause afforded the claimant an adequate and fair opportunity to seek judicial redress.

If a contractual term provides only for an impossibly short time for the dispute to be referred to a court of law, it is contrary to public policy and unenforceable.

[8] As to the requirement of fairness, the court laid out a two-part test: The first part entails a weighing-up of the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the right of all persons to seek judicial redress.