23/07/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Cohabitation, Costs, Divorce, Financial non-disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Non-disclosure consequences, Procedural Law, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance ability to pay, best interests of the child, child maintenance, Divorce Law, divorce proceedings, earning capacity, family law judgment, financial disclosure, financial non-disclosure, full and frank disclosure, H.L v B.L, inflated expenses, interim maintenance, interim relief, legal costs contribution, maintenance claim, Maintenance Order, maintenance pendente lite, marital standard of living, Minor Children, Njokweni J, Rule 43, Rule 43 Application, South African case law, South African Family Law, spousal maintenance, uberrima fides, Western Cape divorce, Western Cape High Court Candour, Children and the Limits of Interim Maintenance: H.L v B.L (2025/216979) [2026] ZAWCHC 350 (13 July 2026). The factual background and the parties’ competing claims In H.L v B.L (2025/216979) ZAWCHC 350 (13 July 2026), the Western Cape High Court was required to determine an application for… 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
17/04/2026 Bertus Preller Alter ego trust, Attorney and client costs, Costs, Divorce, Insolvent spouse litigation, Out of community of property, Piercing the corporate veil, Procedural Law, Punitive Cost Orders, Punitive costs orders, Redistribution Claim, Rule 47 Uniform Rules of Court, Section 23(6) Insolvency Act, Section 34 Constitution access to courts, Section 7(3) Divorce Act, Security for costs, Security for costs, Trust joinder divorce, Trusts, Trusts, Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious litigation alter ego doctrine, attorney and client costs Scale B, corporate veil family law, discretionary remedy security for costs, divorce litigation strategy, divorce trusts South Africa, family law South Africa, Fusion Properties v Stellenbosch Municipality, impecunious spouse constitutional rights, insolvent spouse litigation, joinder of companies divorce, joinder of trusts divorce, piercing the corporate veil, redistribution claim trusts, redistribution of assets, Rule 47 Uniform Rules of Court, section 23(6) Insolvency Act, section 34 Constitution access to courts, section 7(3) Divorce Act, security for costs, Shepstone & Wiley v Geyser, tactical litigation abuse of process, trust beneficiary divorce South Africa, trust joinder divorce, unrehabilitated insolvent divorce, vexatious litigation divorce, Welgemoed AJ, Western Cape High Court, ZAWCHC 2026 Piercing the Veil and Opening the Courthouse Doors: How South African Courts Refuse to Let Security for Costs Become a Weapon of Oppression in Divorce Litigation — M.A.V. NO and Others v E.V (Case No. 8692/2020) [2026] ZAWCHC 167 (14 April 2026). The Facts: Divorce, Sequestration and a Web of Trusts and Companies The matter of M.A.V. NO and Others v E.V (Case No. 8692/2020) ZAWCHC 167 (14 April 2026) concerns an… READ MORE
02/04/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Children, Costs, Divorce, Financial non-disclosure, Maintenance, Non-disclosure consequences, Punitive costs orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Variation Rule 43(6) 2-2-3 contact schedule, care and contact, child maintenance, costs contribution, divorce costs, divorce proceedings, Fairways Business Trust, Family Advocate, family trust, financial non-disclosure, forensic auditor, Genius Academy, interim maintenance, legal costs contribution, material change of circumstances, matrimonial property, medical aid maintenance, minor child, patriarchal misdirection, pende lite maintenance, right of first refusal, Rule 43, Rule 43(6), social worker report, South African Family Law, spousal maintenance, sworn valuator, Thembalethu High Court, VW Touareg When Opacity Meets Obligation: Spousal Maintenance, Financial Non-Disclosure and the Limits of Rule 43 — J.V.D.B v O.V.D.B (234/25) [2026] ZAWCHC 136 (23 March 2026). The Facts and Background to the Rule 43(6) Application The matter of J.V.D.B v O.V.D.B (234/25) ZAWCHC 136 (23 March 2026) came before Thulare J in the High Court of… READ MORE
16/03/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Appeal, Arrear Maintenace, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Best Interests of the Child, Child Maintenance, Children, Divorce, Duty to maintain, Interim Maintenance, Interlocutory applications, Irregular proceedings, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Maintenance, Maintenance Court, Parental Rights, Pendente Lite, Procedural Law, Punitive costs orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Appeal, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Rule 58, Spousal Maintenance, Stepparents, Variation Rule 43(6) accrual system, appealability, blended families, common law development, Divorce, divorce proceedings, duty of support, Family Law, Govindjee AJA, interests of justice, interim maintenance, interim relief, jurisdictional threshold, maintenance pendente lite, non-appealability, out of community of property, piecemeal appeals, Rule 43, Rule 43(6), SCA, section 16(3), section 173 Constitution, South African divorce law, statutory bar, stepchildren, stepparent maintenance, Superior Courts Act, Supreme Court of Appeal, Western Cape High Court Blended Families, Bitter Disputes and a Blocked Appeal: The SCA Draws the Line on Rule 43 Appealability in B.E v N.T and Others (505/2025) [2026] ZASCA 25 (11 March 2026). The Facts: A Blended Family, a Breakdown, and a Battle Over Stepchildren's Maintenance BE and NT married on 27 April 2018, out of community of property subject to the accrual… READ MORE
04/02/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Costs, Family Advocate, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Mediation, Non-disclosure consequences, Pendente Lite, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Form Rules of Court adverse costs orders family law, clean hands doctrine, contribution to legal costs, contribution towards costs requirements, custody and contact disputes, Du Preez v Du Preez, duty of disclosure in divorce, duty of support spouses, equitable relief divorce, false affidavits maintenance, Family Advocate role, family law dishonesty, financial disclosure matrimonial proceedings, interim maintenance South Africa, maintenance court jurisdiction, matrimonial property disputes, Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, non-disclosure consequences, Office of Family Advocate, perjury in divorce proceedings, prima facie case legal costs, Rule 43 applications, Rule 43 costs orders, Rule 43(5) discretion, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance pendente lite, uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 43, Van Rippen v Van Rippen When Clean Hands Matter: The Fatal Cost of Non-Disclosure in Rule 43 Applications – S.J. J v M.M. J (2025/056214) [2026] ZAGPJHC 57 (2 February 2026). Factual Matrix: A Rule 43 Application Gone Wrong The parties married on 13 October 2012 in Johannesburg, out of community of property with the accrual system. Two minor children were… READ MORE
20/01/2026 Bertus Preller Accrual Calculation, Accrual Calculator, Accrual claims, Accrual system, Alimony, Asset Disclosure, Costs, Divorce, Exceptional circumstances separation, Financial Disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Calculator, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Properties Act, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, section 10 MPA, Separation Applications, Separation of issues, Spousal Maintenance accrual system divorce proceedings, antenuptial contract accrual system, balance of convenience separation, bifurcated divorce proceedings, cost of separation applications, Denel v Vorster separation principles, divorce accrual claim, exceptional circumstances separation, expeditious disposal litigation, financially vulnerable spouse, formal tenders divorce, full disclosure matrimonial assets, Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, maintenance security life policy, matrimonial property act section 7, matrimonial property disclosure duties, post-divorce maintenance uncertainty, prejudice to respondent spouse, procedural protection vulnerable spouse, Rule 33(4) separation of issues, Rule 43 interim relief, section 10 MPA deferred payment, section 4(2) divorce act, South African divorce law 2026, spousal maintenance claim, strike date accrual calculation, upfront payment accrual, Western Cape High Court family law, Wille J divorce judgment Why Formal Tenders Matter: Separation Refused Without Security for Vulnerable Spouse in AMG and Another v TSG (2025/057077) [2026] ZAWCHC 6 (19 January 2026). Factual Matrix: A Marriage Breakdown Complicated by Accrual and Maintenance Claims The matter before Wille, J concerned a marriage of over three decades that had irretrievably broken down, but in… READ MORE
17/01/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, Emotional Abuse, Financial Abuse, Forfeiture of Benefits, Forfeiture patrimonial benefits, Harassment, In Community of Property, Marital misconduct, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, Punitive costs orders, Sexual Abuse, Substantial misconduct, Substantial misconduct, Verbal Abuse costs in divorce, discretion of court, divorce proceedings South Africa, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, duration of marriage, Engelbrecht v Engelbrecht, financial delinquency, financial irresponsibility, Forfeiture of benefits, interim protection orders, marital breakdown, marriage in community of property, Mashola v Mashola, matrimonial property, municipal debt, no-fault divorce, patrimonial benefits, pension benefit misconduct, section 9(1) Divorce Act, spousal abuse, substantial misconduct, transfer of property, two-stage approach, unduly benefited test, value judgment, Wijker principles When Domestic Violence and Financial Delinquency Justify Forfeiture: Analysis of W.M.C.M v U.A.M (7390/2018) [2026] ZAGPPHC 5 (12 January 2026). The Factual Matrix: A Pattern of Misconduct and Financial Delinquency The parties in this matter were married in community of property on 16 December 2000. The marriage endured for approximately… 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
13/12/2025 Bertus Preller Adult Children, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Arrear Maintenance Variation, Child Maintenance, Children, Contempt of court maintenance, Costs, Divorce order interpretation, Locus standi adult dependent children, Maintenance, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Major children maintenance rights, Natural guardianship termination, Parent standing enforcement, Post-divorce maintenance enforcement, Procedural Law, Punitive Cost Orders, Section 6(3) Divorce Act, Self-supporting children definition, Settlement agreement drafting adult dependents tertiary education, ancillary maintenance orders, arrear maintenance claims, Bannatyne contempt proceedings, best interests child section 28(2), Bursey common law duty support, civil claim reimbursement, contempt of court maintenance, divorce order interpretation, divorce settlement clauses, Endumeni interpretation principles, family law practitioners, locus standi adult dependent children, Maintenance Act enforcement, maintenance order enforcement, major children maintenance rights, natural guardianship termination, parent standing enforcement, payment recipient designation, PL v YL settlement agreements, post-divorce maintenance enforcement, primary caregiver designation, section 6(3) Divorce Act, section 8 Divorce Act variation, self-supporting children definition, settlement agreement drafting, Western Cape Full Court, Z v Z distinction Parents Stripped of Enforcement Rights for Adult Children’s Maintenance Post-Divorce: A Critical Analysis of R.L v J.F.D.L (A128/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 585 (12 December 2025). The Facts: Post-Divorce Enforcement of Maintenance for Adult Dependent Children The appellant and respondent were married in community of property for thirty years before divorcing in the High Court on… READ MORE