09/10/2026 Bertus Preller Absence of a party, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Ex parte application, Fraud, non-disclosure, Maintenance, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, Maintenance Court, Procedural Law, Reconsideration application, Rescission, common law rescission, Rule 42(1)(a), Schlesinger v Schlesinger, Self-created urgency, Urgency, Urgent applications, Urgent divorce applications, Zuma v Secretary Judicial Commission absence of a party, common law rescission, contempt of court, divorce consent paper, East Rock Trading, ex parte application, finality of judgments, fraud, Greig AJ, Luna Meubel, Madavanhu, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, maintenance arrears, non-disclosure, periodical imprisonment, Rainbow Farms, reconsideration application, rescission, Rule 41A mediation, Rule 42(1)(a), Rule 6(12)(c), Schlesinger v Schlesinger, section 10 enquiry, Self-Created Urgency, spousal maintenance, Urgent Application, Western Cape High Court, writ of commitment, Zuma v Secretary Judicial Commission When Both Sides Lose: “Absence”, Self-Created Urgency and a Decade of Maintenance Litigation: E.H v J.C.J.V.D (19849/2022) [2026] ZAWCHC 576 (2 October 2026). A Decade of Enforcement and a Friday Evening Hearing The judgment in E.H v J.C.J.V.D (19849/2022) ZAWCHC 576 (2 October 2026), delivered by Greig AJ in the Western Cape Division,… READ MORE
03/10/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Best Interests of the Child, Care and Contact, Child Maintenance, Childcare Expert, Children, Children's matters South Africa, Civil contempt South Africa, Contact Rights, Contempt of Court, Costs, Curator Ad Litem, Divorce, Forensic psychologist mandate, Hired Gun Expert, Maintenance, Parental rights and responsibilities, Pendente Lite, Primary Residence, Primary residence dispute, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Unlawful retention of a child, Urgency, Urgent applications, Variation Rule 43(6) best interests of the child, breach of court order, child abuse allegations, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Contact rights, court-appointed expert, curator ad litem, divorce litigation, DTL v GB, expert bias, family advocate report, family law South Africa, forensic psychologist mandate, Gauteng High Court Johannesburg, hired gun expert, interim care and contact, parental alienation, parental rights and responsibilities, pendente lite order, primary care, primary residence, Rule 43 variation, Rule 43(6), Rule 67A(3), scale C costs, self-help, sheriff enforcement, unlawful retention of a child, Urgent Application Self-Help Never Pays: Unlawful Retention of a Child and the Limits of Rule 43(6) — L.C.E v C.E (2026/226362) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1070 (29 September 2026). Neutral Citation: E v E (2026-226362) ZAGPJHC --- (29 September 2026) The Facts: A Four-Year-Old Caught in the Crossfire of a Brutal Divorce The parties in L.C.E v C.E (2026/226362)… READ MORE
23/09/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Costs, Divorce, Maintenance, Procedural Law, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Variation Rule 43(6) Court Orders Are Not Optional: Contempt, Self-Help and Rule 43 in S.L v A.C and Another (2026/047264) [2026] ZAWCHC 536 (17 September 2026). The facts: an attempt to recover a Mercedes-Benz in the midst of protracted divorce litigation S.L v A.C and Another (2026/047264) ZAWCHC 536 (17 September 2026) concerned an application arising… READ MORE
12/09/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenace, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Costs, Divorce, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Procedural Law, Punitive costs orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Serial contempt, Spousal Maintenance attorney-and-own-client costs, best interests of minor children, beyond reasonable doubt, contempt of court, court order enforcement, D W v J L K, divorce litigation South Africa, evidentiary burden, Fakie case, full financial disclosure, interim maintenance, maintenance defaulter, maintenance enforcement, Maintenance Order, mala fides, mortgage bond arrears, non-compliance with court order, periodic imprisonment, Plascon-Evans rule, punitive costs, Rule 43, Rule 43 maintenance, South African Family Law, standard of proof, suspended committal, V.P v D.P, weekend imprisonment, Western Cape High Court, wilful non-compliance Defying a Rule 43 Maintenance Order: Weekend Imprisonment and Punitive Costs in V.P v D.P (2026/190344) [2026] ZAWCHC 509 (10 September 2026). The Facts: Persistent Non-compliance with a Rule 43 Maintenance Order In V.P v D.P (2026/190344) ZAWCHC 509 (10 September 2026), Davis J dealt with an urgent application arising from a… READ MORE
17/08/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenance, Child Maintenance, Children, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Maintenance Court, Procedural Law, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance ad factum praestandum, attorney and own client costs, Bannatyne v Bannatyne, committal, contempt of court, Divorce, Divorce Attorney Cape Town, dolus eventualis, emoluments attachment, Fakie v CCII Systems, family law South Africa, Firestone v Genticuro, HG v AG, interim maintenance, M.D.V v F.M.D.V, maintenance enforcement, Maintenance Order, mala fides, medical aid, Pheko v Ekurhuleni, purging contempt, reimbursement of expenses, Rule 43, spousal maintenance, Suspended Sentence, Western Cape High Court, wilfulness, Writ of Execution, ZAWCHC 411 Pay Now, Argue Never: Husband’s Selective Compliance with Rule 43 Maintenance Order Lands Him a Suspended Prison Sentence — M.D.V v F.M.D.V (2025/091265) [2026] ZAWCHC 411 (14 August 2026). The Western Cape Division has once again demonstrated that it will not tolerate maintenance debtors who treat interim maintenance orders as optional, negotiable or subject to their own private assessment… READ MORE
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
25/04/2026 Bertus Preller Attorney and client costs, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, constitutional rights of children, Contempt of Court, Costs de bonis propriis, Family Advocate, Lawyer-client alignment, Punitive costs orders activist intervention family law, attorney professional conduct, attorney withdrawal, best interests of the child, child care and contact, child custody disputes, Constitution section 1(c), contempt of court, costs de bonis propriis, Court Order Compliance, Fakie contempt, Family Advocate, family law South Africa, High Court contempt proceedings, High Court parenting disputes, lay assistant family law, Legal Practice Council referral, M.N v J.E, parental responsibilities and rights, parenting litigation, Rule of Law, S v Beyer, social workers, suspended fine, suspended imprisonment, unauthorised legal assistance, Uniform Rule 16(4), urgent child return order, ZAWCHC 189 When Activism Crosses the Line: Contempt, Child Welfare and Attorney Accountability in M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) [2026] ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026). The Facts: A Child Removed from the Father’s Care, an Urgent Return Order, and the Contempt Sequel In M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026), Pangarker… READ MORE
17/01/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Appeal, Contempt of Court, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, Interim Protection Order, Interim relief with no final effect, Irreparable harm test, Procedural Law, Qwelane test coercion property sale, contempt of court divorce, contempt proceedings enforcement, divorce decree enforcement, divorce property disputes, Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, domestic violence protection orders, domestic violence warrant execution, economic abuse definition, exceptional circumstances appeal, grave injustice test, High Court Gauteng Division, interim interdict appealability, interim interdicts South Africa, interim relief with no final effect, irreparable harm test, leave to appeal interim relief, marital home sale dispute, property sale cooperation, property sale disputes divorce, protection order breach, Qwelane test, section 1 Domestic Violence Act, South African Family Law, Springs Domestic Violence Court, VM v JM 2025, warrant of arrest domestic violence, Wilson J judgment, ZAGPJHC 1269 When Interim Interdicts Cannot Be Appealed: Domestic Violence Warrants and Property Sales in V.M v J.M (2025/203538) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1269 (18 December 2025). Background and Factual Matrix: The Domestic Violence Warrant and Property Sale Dispute The matter before Wilson J arose from an application by JM, the respondent, for leave to appeal against… 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