19/12/2025 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Children's matters South Africa, Divorce, Hostile Family Lawyers, Lawyer-client alignment, Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, Litigation misconduct, LPC Code of Conduct, LPC Code of Conduct, Mediation, Parental Coordinator, Parental Rights, Rule 41A mediation notice, Zealous advocacy adversarial litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, attorney ethics children, best interests of child, child-centred advocacy, child-focused representation, children's matters South Africa, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, co-parenting relationships, collaborative family law, contact disputes, costs de bonis propriis, custody disputes, family law ethics, family law South Africa, family mediation mandatory, lawyer-client alignment, Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, Legal Practice Council, LPC Code of Conduct, mediation family law, parental alienation, parental conflict, parenting responsibilities, professional conduct family lawyers, Rule 43 applications, section 6(4) Children's Act, section 7 Children's Act, Van den Berg v Le Roux, zealous advocacy When Lawyers Become Warriors: The Dangers of Over-Identification with Clients in South African Children’s Matters. Introduction In high conflict childcare and contact disputes, lawyers sometimes align so closely with their clients’ positions that they become virtual proxies for parental animosity. This “over-identification” with clients, even… 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
21/10/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Asset Disclosure, Children, Costs, Divorce, Fishing expedition discovery, Gender equality, Hostile Family Lawyers, Interim Maintenance, Irregular proceedings, Maintenance, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Procedural Law, Procedure, Prolixity, Punitive Cost Orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Rule 58 Access to Justice, accrual claims, attorney fees Rule 43, B.S v K.W.S 2025, catch me if you can divorce, Children's Best Interests, constitutional implications maintenance, contribution to legal costs, E v E full court, financial disclosure divorce, financially weaker spouse, full and frank disclosure, gender equality divorce, hiding assets divorce, interim relief pending divorce, interim spousal maintenance, KwaZulu-Natal High Court, length of court papers, maintenance pendente lite, matrimonial litigation, matrimonial property disputes, prolixity in divorce proceedings, relevant versus irrelevant evidence, Rule 43 applications, S.M v N.M 2024, South African Family Law, standard of living divorce, striking off applications, Uniform Rule 43 When Brevity Becomes Brutality: S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 54 versus B.S v K.W.S (2025/027511) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1085 – Has Striking Off Rule 43 Applications for Prolixity Gone Too Far? Two Cases, Two Outcomes: The Factual Matrix of S.M v N.M and B.S v K.W.S The contrasting outcomes in S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) ZAKZDHC 54 (28 August 2024) and B.S… READ MORE
10/09/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Costs, Divorce, Divorce summons prerequisite, Maintenance, Procedural Law, Procedure, Rule 43, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 58 2018 Rule 43 amendment, child custody applications, Court Jurisdiction, divorce attorneys, divorce law procedure, divorce practice, divorce summons prerequisite, divorce summons timing, family court procedures, family law practitioners, High Court Gauteng, in limine objections, interim applications, interim maintenance, interim relief requirements, legal costs contribution, legal procedural requirements, litigation prerequisites, matrimonial action pending, matrimonial disputes, matrimonial interim relief, matrimonial law compliance, matrimonial proceedings, pendente lite applications, pending divorce requirement, Procedural Compliance, procedural defects, Rule 43 applications, South African Family Law, Uniform Rules of Court No Divorce Summons, No Rule 43 Relief: A.C v H.C (2024/148225) [2025] ZAGPJHC 741 (28 July 2025) Confirms Procedural Prerequisites for Matrimonial Interim Applications. Factual Background and Procedural History The case A.C v H.C (2024/148225), decided on 28 July 2025 in the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, addressed a Rule 43 application for interim relief… READ MORE
08/09/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Magistrate's Court jurisdiction, Procedural Law, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance attorney-client costs, Bannatyne decision, Burden of Proof, Civil Contempt, Constitutional Court, contempt of court, Fakie test, financial disclosure, forum shopping, inability to pay defence, magistrate's court jurisdiction, maintenance arrears, maintenance contempt, maintenance enforcement, mala fides, Pheko case, procedural abuse, Rule 43 proceedings, Rule 43(6) variation, Suspended Sentence, wilful non-compliance Forum Shopping and Maintenance Contempt: M.M v M.F (2023-024319) [2025] ZAGPJHC 857 (4 September 2025) – When Procedural Abuse Meets the Fakie Test. Factual Matrix: From Rule 43 Order to Contempt Proceedings The factual backdrop to this matter illustrates the unfortunate reality facing many maintenance beneficiaries in South Africa. The parties, former spouses… READ MORE
04/08/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Anti-Dissipation Interdicts, anti-dissipatory relief, Child Maintenance, Children, Divorce, International Divorce, Maintenance, Procedural Law, Spousal Maintenance abuse of process, anti-dissipatory interdict, asset dissipation, asset protection, balance of convenience, Bassani Mining, bona fide expenditure, child maintenance, Colombian marriage law, cost orders, cross-border divorce, divorce proceedings, Family Law, foreign matrimonial regime, Hemiparesis disability, intention requirement, interim interdict, international divorce, jurisdictional requirements, Knox D'Arcy test, KSL v AL, mala fide conduct, matrimonial law, prima facie right, procedural pitfalls, spousal maintenance, urgent applications, Western Cape High Court Title: When Cross-Border Divorces Meet Anti-Dissipatory Interdicts: Intention, Abuse of Process and the Knox D’Arcy Test in T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 325 (1 August 2025). Factual Matrix: A Cross-Border Marriage in Crisis This case presents the complexities that arise when a marriage governed by foreign law encounters the South African legal system during dissolution proceedings.… READ MORE
02/07/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Adversarial Legal System, Costs, Divorce, Family Law Court System South Africa, Procedural Law, Procedure, Punitive Cost Orders, Rule 30A, Uniform Form Rules of Court Afrocentrics case, attorney costs orders, Bloem case, civil procedure, condonation applications, court deadlines, court rules compliance, de bonis propriis costs, Family Court, family law proceedings, Helen Suzman Foundation case, High Court Johannesburg, late filing affidavits, legal practitioner conduct, litigation management, motion proceedings, Multi-Links case, Parental Responsibilities, Procedural irregularities, procedural non-compliance, professional conduct, Rule 27, Rule 28, Rule 30A, Rule 6, South African Law, supplementary affidavits, Uniform Rules of Court When Procedure Trumps Substance: Dissecting Rule 30A Non-Compliance in N.S v A.D (2022/257) [2025] ZAGPJHC 632 (20 June 2025). Factual Background: A Tale of Procedural Non-Compliance in Family Law Proceedings The factual matrix in N.S v A.D presents a striking illustration of how procedural non-compliance can derail even the… READ MORE
29/06/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alienation, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Costs, Divorce, Family Advocate, Joint Decision Making, Maintenance, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Rule 43, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Spousal Maintenance, Variation Rule 43(6) B.P.M v J.L.M, best interests of the child, child contact, co-parenting, Colman v Colman, Contact rights, custody variation, divorce litigation, Du Preez v Du Preez, Family Advocate, family advocate report, family law South Africa, forensic psychologist, High Court Limpopo, interim maintenance, Mangena AJ, parental alienation, parenting plans, PAS, Rule 43 Application, Rule 43(6), shared residency, Soller v G, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, spousal support South Africa, Variation Application, Visser v Visser, ZALMPPHC 96 Parental Alienation, Prolixity and the Best Interests Principle in B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025). Background and Factual Matrix of the Rule 43(6) Dispute The matter before the court in B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025) concerned a Rule 43(6) application brought… READ MORE
28/06/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Discovery, Divorce, Fishing expedition discovery, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Procedural Law, Rule 35(1) discovery, Rule 35(14) abuse of process discovery, court compulsion applications, court discovery procedures, discovery alternative mechanisms, discovery application abuse, discovery application costs, discovery application timing, discovery case management, discovery legal principles, discovery mechanism selection, discovery procedural errors, discovery timing requirements, document compulsion applications, document inspection rules, essential documents test, fishing expedition discovery, joint estate document access, matrimonial discovery disputes, matrimonial litigation discovery, matrimonial proceedings discovery, matrimonial property documentation, pleading purposes discovery, post-pleading discovery, procedural abuse family law, procedural discipline discovery, procedural requirements discovery, Rule 35(1) discovery, Rule 35(14) South Africa Procedural Abuse in Discovery: M.G.K v M.J.K (2024/074608) [2025] ZAGPPHC 535 (23 May 2025) – When Rule 35(14) Goes Wrong. The Factual Matrix: Divorce Proceedings and Document Discovery Disputes This procedural dispute arose within the context of contested divorce proceedings that commenced in March 2024, when the applicant instituted action… READ MORE