25/06/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Child Maintenance, Children, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Divorce, Financial non-disclosure, Maintenance, Maintenance Court, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Non-disclosure consequences, Plascon Evans Rule, Post-divorce maintenance, Post-divorce maintenance enforcement, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings Arrear Maintenance, Attorney and Client Costs, beyond reasonable doubt, child maintenance, Civil Contempt, contempt of court, Contempt Proceedings, Davis AJ, Dezius v Dezius, Divorce Act, dolus eventualis, Eke v Parsons, evidential burden, Fakie v CCII Systems, family law South Africa, financial disclosure, full and frank disclosure, inability to pay defence, luxuries non-essentials, maintenance court variation, maintenance debtor, Maintenance Order, parental maintenance obligations, Pheko v Ekurhuleni, Plascon-Evans rule, poverty defence, settlement agreement order of court, Western Cape High Court, wilful and mala fide When “I Can’t Pay” Becomes Contempt: Luxuries, Maintenance Arrears and the Duty of Full Disclosure in D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) [2026] ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026). D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026) The facts: a maintenance debtor who paid for luxuries before his children The applicant and respondent divorced in 2015. In terms… READ MORE
16/12/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Access to justice section 34, Attorney and client costs, Bona fide defence, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Discovery, Divorce, Duty to court, Good cause rescission, Hostile Family Lawyers, Inherent powers of court, Legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Muslim Marriages, Procedural Law, Procedural non-compliance, Procedure, Punitive costs orders, Rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(1) discovery, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), Section 173 Constitution, Serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, Striking out defence, Uniform Form Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious litigation, Vindicating court authority abuse of court process, Attorney and Client Costs, bona fide defence, chamber book applications, contempt of court, contumacious conduct, discovery obligations, divorce action, duty to court, family law litigation, good cause rescission, inherent powers of court, legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, maintenance claims, procedural non-compliance, punitive costs orders, rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), section 173 Constitution, section 60.1, section 60.2, serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, striking out defence, vindicating court authority, wilful default When the Court Draws a Line in the Sand: Striking Out for Serial Contempt and Abuse of Process in S.L v A.C (8030/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025). Introduction The case of S.L v A.C (8030/2021) ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025) serves as a stark reminder that access to justice does not mean access to courts on one's… READ MORE
30/09/2025 Bertus Preller Alimony, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Costs, Maintenance, Procedural Law, Rule 43, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Unaffordability defence, Variation Rule 43(6) affordability defence evidence, civil contempt South Africa, constitutional rights maintenance, contempt of court, contribution to legal costs, Equality of Arms, Fakie test contempt, financial disclosure requirements, Gauteng High Court Johannesburg, joint estate litigation, judicial integrity, late filing affidavits, maintenance arrears, mala fide conduct, procedural abuse family law, punitive costs order, Rule 43 proceedings, Rule 43(6) variation, section 10 dignity, section 34 access to justice, section 9 equality, spousal maintenance non-payment, suspended sentence contempt, T.F.C v B.J.C 2025, unaffordability defence, Uniform Rules of Court, warrant of arrest maintenance, wilful non-compliance, ZAGPJHC 956 When “I Cannot Afford It” Fails: Contempt, Constitutional Rights and Procedural Abuse in T.F.C v B.J.C (21300/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 956 (25 September 2025). From Rule 43 Relief to Repeated Refusal: The Factual Matrix of Mounting Non-Compliance The factual backdrop to this contempt application reveals a distressing pattern of deliberate defiance that began almost… READ MORE