23/09/2026 Bertus Preller Divorce, Finality in litigation, matrimonial asset division, matrimonial litigation, Once-and-for-all rule, Piecemeal litigation, Procedure, South African divorce law, Suitable alternative accommodation, Urgent divorce applications divorce litigation strategy, family law practitioners, family law South Africa, finality in litigation, finality principle, fragmented litigation, High Court divorce cases, household furniture dispute, interim relief divorce, L.C v C.B.C, L.C v C.B.C NO and Others, legal finality, litigation costs divorce, marital home occupation, matrimonial home, matrimonial litigation, matrimonial property disputes, once-and-for-all rule, piecemeal litigation, repeat litigation, South African divorce law, South African family law cases, suitable alternative accommodation, temporary accommodation divorce, Thulare J, urgent applications family law, urgent divorce applications, Western Cape High Court, ZAWCHC 549 Finality in High-Conflict Divorce Litigation: The Once-and-for-All Rule in L.C v C.B.C NO and Others (229199/26) [2026] ZAWCHC 549 (22 September 2026). The facts: a temporary move from the matrimonial home becomes a further legal dispute In L.C v C.B.C NO and Others (229199/26) ZAWCHC 549 (22 September 2026), the Western Cape… READ MORE
13/09/2026 Bertus Preller Appeal, Appealability, Civil procedure., Condemnation application, Default judgment., Divorce, Divorce settlement agreement, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Nullity of divorce order, Procedure, Recission, Separation of issues, Settlement agreements accrual claims, appealability, B v B, B v B 2026 ZASCA 115, civil procedure, condonation application, default judgment, Divorce Decree, divorce settlement agreement, final court order, functus officio, jurisdiction, lapsed appeal, matrimonial litigation, Matrimonial Property Act, nullity of court order, procedural fairness, prospects of success, reinstatement of appeal, rescission of judgment, Rule 33(4), Rule 42(1)(a), separation of issues, settlement agreement, South African divorce law, special leave to appeal, Superior Courts Act, Supreme Court of Appeal, Zweni test Crossing the Rule 33(4) Line: When a Divorce Order Becomes a Nullity in B[…] v B[…] (562/2025) [2026] ZASCA 115 (7 September 2026). The Facts and Procedural History: From Settlement Agreement to a Lapsed Appeal The litigation in B v B (562/2025) ZASCA 115 (7 September 2026) arose from a divorce that became… 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
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
08/12/2025 Bertus Preller Accrual system, Clean Break Principle, Cohabitation, Costs, Direct financial contributions, Division of Estate, Divorce, Divorce Act 70 of 1979, EB v ER Constitutional Court, Equitable redistribution, Marriage, Marriage equality, matrimonial asset division, Out of community of property, Procedure, Punitive Cost Orders, Redistribution Claim, Rehabilitative maintenance, Section 7(2) maintenance, Section 7(3) Divorce Act, Section 7(4) contributions, Universal Partnership accrual system, antenuptial contract without accrual, Attorney and Client Costs, Beaumont v Beaumont, clean break principle, cohabitation before marriage, direct financial contributions, domestic partnership, EB v ER Constitutional Court, equitable redistribution, estate valuation disputes, family law redistribution, full court binding precedent, household duties, indirect contributions to estate, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Property Regime, out of community of property, Ponelat v Schrephfer, post-separation conduct, redistribution claims, rehabilitative maintenance, section 7(2) maintenance, section 7(3) Divorce Act, section 7(4) contributions, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, trust asset disclosure, universal partnership Beyond Marriage: 30 Years, 40% Redistribution and the Universal Partnership Principle – E.L.M v L.M (9360/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 127 (5 December 2025). Facts and Matrimonial Background: A 30-Year Relationship The parties in this matter were married out of community of property without the accrual system on 27 March 1999, following a six-year… READ MORE
22/11/2025 Bertus Preller Animus manendi, Clearly foreseen contingency, Contingencies domicile, Divorce, Divorce jurisdiction, Divorce proceedings jurisdiction, Domicile, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, Domicile of choice, Domicile of origin, Foreseeable contingency, Indefinite period, Intention to settle indefinitely, International relocation, Pollak test, Procedure, Reasonably anticipated contingency, Section 1(2) Domicile Act, Section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, Special plea in abatement, Vague possibility animus manendi, Chinatex v Erskine, clearly foreseen contingency, contingencies domicile, divorce jurisdiction, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, domicile of choice, domicile of origin, Eilon v Eilon, Family Law, foreseeable contingency, indefinite period, intention to settle indefinitely, International Relocation, IRC v Bullock, marital breakdown, matrimonial jurisdiction, OB v LBDS, onus of proof domicile, Pollak test, Re Fuld, reasonably anticipated contingency, section 1(2) Domicile Act, section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, special plea in abatement, trial period, vague possibility, Western Cape High Court When a “Trial Period” Defeats Domicile: Animus Manendi and Foreseeable Contingencies in M.S.S v R.A (2025/0539959) [2025] ZAWCHC 517 (10 November 2025). The Facts: From Cape Town to the Netherlands and Back Again The plaintiff and defendant met in the Western Cape in 2016. Their relationship progressed quickly, with the couple moving… 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
25/09/2025 Bertus Preller Amendment of Pleadings, Constitutional law, Divorce, Divorce summons South Africa, Marriage, Procedural Law, Procedure, Punitive Cost Orders, Rule 28 amendments, Section 7 Matrimonial Properties Act, Section 7(3) Divorce Act 1984 cut-off date, amendment applications, Antenuptial Contracts, case management, constitutional challenge, Constitutional Court, constitutional development, costs orders, divorce proceedings, EB v ER judgment, equitable relief, Family Law, Judicial Discretion, M.S v E.S, matrimonial contributions, matrimonial property law, Mpumalanga High Court, Msibi AJ, out of community of property, pleadings amendment, procedural amendments, procedural compliance bertus preller, redistribution orders, Rule 28 amendments, RVB v JVB, section 7(3) Divorce Act, South African divorce law Amendment Revolution: How M.S v E.S (3091/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 96 (23 September 2025) Transforms Redistribution Claims Post-EB. Factual Matrix and Procedural History: From Closed Pleadings to Constitutional Development The parties in this matter were married out of community of property, excluding the accrual system, pursuant to a… READ MORE