22/11/2025 Bertus Preller Balance of probabilities, Children, Court-ordered DNA testing, DNA evidence admissibility, DNA testing, Documentary evidence principles, Expert evidence requirements, Genetic testing reliability, Paternity confirmation, Paternity Disputes, Paternity Fraud, Paternity presumptions, Probative value of documents, SANAS guidelines, Scientific certainty standards authenticity of documents, balance of probabilities, buttressing oral evidence, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965, contemporaneous documentary evidence, court-ordered DNA testing, cross-examination requirements, cumulative evidence assessment, DNA evidence admissibility, documentary evidence principles, evidence law principles, expert evidence requirements, expert opinion evidence, family law South Africa, genetic testing reliability, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, maintenance court proceedings, maintenance enquiries, Mayer v Williams, paternity disputes, paternity presumptions, prima facie evidence, probative value of documents, SANAS guidelines, scientific certainty standards, unrepresented litigants, viva voce testimony, Western Cape High Court When DNA Evidence Speaks Without Experts: Probabilities, Paternity and Documentary Evidence in E.A.P v S.W (A115/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 540 (20 November 2025). Factual Background: A Protracted Paternity Dispute Spanning Two Decades This appeal concerned a finding by the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, sitting as a maintenance court, that the appellant was the… READ MORE
22/11/2025 Bertus Preller Animus manendi, Clearly foreseen contingency, Contingencies domicile, Divorce, Divorce jurisdiction, Divorce proceedings jurisdiction, Domicile, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, Domicile of choice, Domicile of origin, Foreseeable contingency, Indefinite period, Intention to settle indefinitely, International relocation, Pollak test, Procedure, Reasonably anticipated contingency, Section 1(2) Domicile Act, Section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, Special plea in abatement, Vague possibility animus manendi, Chinatex v Erskine, clearly foreseen contingency, contingencies domicile, divorce jurisdiction, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, domicile of choice, domicile of origin, Eilon v Eilon, Family Law, foreseeable contingency, indefinite period, intention to settle indefinitely, International Relocation, IRC v Bullock, marital breakdown, matrimonial jurisdiction, OB v LBDS, onus of proof domicile, Pollak test, Re Fuld, reasonably anticipated contingency, section 1(2) Domicile Act, section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, special plea in abatement, trial period, vague possibility, Western Cape High Court When a “Trial Period” Defeats Domicile: Animus Manendi and Foreseeable Contingencies in M.S.S v R.A (2025/0539959) [2025] ZAWCHC 517 (10 November 2025). The Facts: From Cape Town to the Netherlands and Back Again The plaintiff and defendant met in the Western Cape in 2016. Their relationship progressed quickly, with the couple moving… READ MORE
21/11/2025 Bertus Preller 15(2)(a) matrimonial property act, Abuse, Actio communi dividundo, Alienation of immovable property, Dispensing with spousal consent, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, In Community of Property, Matrimonial Properties Act, Plascon Evans Rule, Section 16(1) actio communi dividundo, alienation of immovable property, bona fide dispute of fact, bound co-ownership, credit agreements joint estate, dispensing with spousal consent, evidentiary burden motion proceedings, family law property disputes, free co-ownership, good cause to dispense with consent, joint estate, joint estate property sale, marriage in community of property, matrimonial property disputes, MEPF case, national credit act section 129, Plascon-Evans principles, prejudice to joint estate, private sale vs execution sale, reinstatement of credit agreement, Rule 46A, sale in execution, section 15(2)(a) matrimonial property act, section 15(2)(f) matrimonial property act, section 16(1) matrimonial property act, spousal consent requirements, unreasonable withholding of consent, withholding consent unreasonably Breaking the Deadlock: When Courts Override a Spouse’s Refusal to Sell Joint Estate Property – J.G.S v S.E.S and Others (A283/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 543 (21 November 2025). Introduction The Western Cape High Court's decision in J.G.S v S.E.S and Others (A283/2024) ZAWCHC 543 addresses a question of considerable practical importance in South African family law: when may… READ MORE
08/11/2025 Bertus Preller Abducting parent defences, Article 13 defences, Article 13(a) consent, Article 13(b) grave risk, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Left-behind parent rights, Prompt return of child, Wrongful removal of child abducting parent defences, ancillary relief, Article 13 defences, Article 13(a) consent, Article 13(b) grave risk, Central Authority South Africa, child return application, Convention proceedings, curator ad litem, custody proceedings, Denmark child abduction, family law South Africa, grave risk threshold, habitual residence, Hague Convention, International Child Abduction, intolerable situation, jurisdictional issues, Koch case, left-behind parent rights, Mirror Orders, N M v Central Authority, Plascon-Evans rule, prompt return of child, Protective Measures, Sonderup v Tondelli, summary proceedings, two-stage process, wrongful removal of child When Midnight Departures Belie Consent: Article 13 Defences Fail in International Child Abduction Case – Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v L (2025-178969) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1101 (3 November 2025). Factual Matrix: A Mother's Contested Departure from Denmark to South Africa The dispute before Adams J in the Gauteng Division of the High Court centred on a six-year-old boy who… READ MORE
01/11/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Conduct of Childcare Experts, Interlocutory applications, Motion proceedings, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Plascon Evans Rule, Procedural Law, Procedure, Referral to trial, Rule 6(5)(g), Sexual Abuse, Sexual Abuse Allegations abuse of process, child contact disputes, Children's Best Interests, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, coaching of child, court as upper guardian, credibility assessment, custody and access, Dispute of Fact, expert evidence family law, expert witness requirements, family advocate report, forensic psychologist report, interlocutory applications, judicial investigation children, motion proceedings, onus of proof family law, Parental Rights, Plascon-Evans rule, referral to trial, room hire principle, Rule 6(5)(g), section 28 best interests, sexual abuse allegations, shared parenting arrangements, South African Family Law, supervised contact, suspension of contact rights, unsubstantiated allegations Unproven Abuse Allegations and Expert Evidence: When Courts Reject Referral to Trial in Child Contact Disputes – C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025). The Factual Matrix: Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Protracted Litigation The case of C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025) presents a troubling factual scenario that will resonate… READ MORE