06/03/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Divorce, Duty to court, Duty to maintain, Financial non-disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Non-disclosure consequences, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Trusts, Trusts, Variation Rule 43(6) Pleading Poverty While Plundering the Pot: The Courts Draw a Hard Line on Rule 43(6) Abuse — C V S v S V S (18688/2022) [2026] ZAWCHC 30 (16 February 2026). The Facts: A Pattern of Non-Disclosure and Deliberate Financial Engineering In C V S v S V S (18688/2022) ZAWCHC 30 (16 February 2026), Holderness J was confronted with what… READ MORE
22/01/2026 Bertus Preller Antenuptial Contracts, Antenuptial Contracts, Black Coffee, Black women property rights, Constitutional Court customary law, Constitutional law, Customary Law, Customary marriage dissolution, Customary marriage requirements, Customary Marriages, Divorce, Divorce summons South Africa, EB v ER Constitutional Court, In Community of Property, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Properties Act, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Out of community of property, Procedural Law, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Section 8 RCMA, Section 10(2) Antenuptial Contracts, black women property rights, civil marriages, community of property, Constitutional Court judgment, constitutional invalidity, creditor protection, customary law, customary marriages, Deeds Registries Act, dissenting judgment, family law South Africa, Gumede case, joint estate, judicial oversight, Majiedt J, marriage conversion, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, Matrimonial Property Regime, out of community of property, postnuptial contracts, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, Rogers J, section 10(2), section 21 MPA, section 25 Constitution, section 7(2) Recognition Act, section 9 Constitution, spousal property rights, VVC v JRM The Antenuptial Contract Controversy: VVC v JRM and Others [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) and the Constitutional Court’s Divided Stance on Customary-to-Civil Marriage Conversions. Factual Matrix: From Customary Union to Civil Marriage and the Antenuptial Contract Conundrum The applicant, VVC, and the first respondent, JRM, entered into a customary marriage on 5 August 2011.… 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
15/01/2026 Bertus Preller Accrual Calculation, Accrual Calculator, Accrual claims, Accrual system, Divorce, Eviction, PIE Act, Procedural Law, Procedure accrual claim, accrual disputes, accrual system, constitutional arguments, contingent rights, conveyancing law, divorce and property, divorce litigation, doctrine of notice, eviction defence, eviction proceedings, family law practitioners, finality in litigation, leave to appeal, matrimonial home, matrimonial property, PIE Act, property ownership, property transactions, reconsideration applications, registered ownership, section 17(2)(f), South African Family Law, spousal occupation, Superior Courts Act, Supreme Court of Appeal, third party purchasers, transfer of property Accrual Rights, Ownership and Eviction: Clear Limits on Spousal Claims Before Divorce — J.M.M and Another v Cara Dorothy Masureik and Others (807/2024) [2026] ZASCA 1 (8 January 2026). Factual Background and Procedural History The matter in J.M.M and Another v Cara Dorothy Masureik and Others arose from protracted and unresolved divorce proceedings between the first applicant and her… READ MORE
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
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
01/11/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Conduct of Childcare Experts, Interlocutory applications, Motion proceedings, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Plascon Evans Rule, Procedural Law, Procedure, Referral to trial, Rule 6(5)(g), Sexual Abuse, Sexual Abuse Allegations abuse of process, child contact disputes, Children's Best Interests, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, coaching of child, court as upper guardian, credibility assessment, custody and access, Dispute of Fact, expert evidence family law, expert witness requirements, family advocate report, forensic psychologist report, interlocutory applications, judicial investigation children, motion proceedings, onus of proof family law, Parental Rights, Plascon-Evans rule, referral to trial, room hire principle, Rule 6(5)(g), section 28 best interests, sexual abuse allegations, shared parenting arrangements, South African Family Law, supervised contact, suspension of contact rights, unsubstantiated allegations Unproven Abuse Allegations and Expert Evidence: When Courts Reject Referral to Trial in Child Contact Disputes – C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025). The Factual Matrix: Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Protracted Litigation The case of C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025) presents a troubling factual scenario that will resonate… READ MORE
26/10/2025 Bertus Preller Accrual claims, Divorce, Divorce Act 70 of 1979, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, Member spouse, Non-member spouse, Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, Pension interest, Procedural Law, Procedure, Referee report, Retirement fund divorce, Section 37D, Settlement agreements, Tax liability pension interest accrual claims, accrual system, C.N.N v N.N, Divorce Act 70 of 1979, divorce settlement agreement, divorce trial court, legislative lacuna pension law, matrimonial property, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, member spouse, motion court jurisdiction, Ndaba v Ndaba, non-member spouse, Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, pension funds legislation, pension interest, pension sharing divorce, referee report, retirement benefits divorce, retirement fund divorce, Reynolds v Reynolds, section 3 Matrimonial Property Act, section 37D, section 7(8), South African Family Law, T.M.W v J.J.W, tax liability pension interest, withdrawal benefits tax, ZAGPPHC 1093 2025 When Retirement Funds Cannot Settle Accrual Claims: D E C B v J M B (37464-2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1093 (21 October 2025) and the Jurisdictional Dilemma in South African Divorce Law. Factual Matrix: When a Referee's Report Reveals More Questions Than Answers The parties in this matter were married out of community of property with the application of the accrual system… 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