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
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