AbstractIt is common for insolvency legislation to interfere with the property rights of debtors, creditors and third parties in pursuit of its purpose to provide an orderly and fair resolution to insolvency‐related problems. However, the South African property clause, Section 25 of the Constitution, prohibits arbitrary interferences with vested property interests. In light of this, this article focuses on the application of Section 25 to insolvency law in South Africa. The question is whether interferences with property rights in terms of insolvency legislation qualify as deprivations of property for constitutional purposes and, if so, whether they comply with the relevant validity requirements. This article investigates this question by explaining the interaction between insolvency law and constitutional law in general, followed by a closer look at the application and operation of the property clause in particular. Thereafter, three examples from case law are discussed to illustrate the role of constitutional property law in evaluating the effects of insolvency legislation in South Africa. The conclusion is drawn that, as long as the relevant requirements are met, the norms underlying the property clause do not hinder the development and implementation of legitimate and necessary insolvency procedures that could impact on vested property rights.