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