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
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
03/09/2025 Bertus Preller Litigation misconduct, Rule 47, matrimonial disputes, divorce proceedings, Security for costs, Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious Proceedings Act abuse of process, access to courts, appellate litigation, attorney threats, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Rights, corporate veil piercing, costs orders, court orders enforcement, divorce proceedings, domestic violence court, frivolous litigation, incola litigant, judicial restraint, legal harassment, Legal Practice Council, litigation misconduct, maintenance court jurisdiction, matrimonial disputes, persistent litigation, procedural defects, procedural fairness, Rule 47, section 34 Constitution, section 36 Constitution, security for costs, trust litigation, vexatious litigant, vexatious Proceedings Act When Persistence Becomes Vexatious: Ten Failed Applications and a Constitutional Reckoning in L.M.W v C.R.W (12866/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 395 (1 September 2025). A Decade of Persistent Litigation: The Factual Matrix The factual landscape of this matter presents a striking example of how matrimonial disputes can spiral into prolonged abuse of court processes.… READ MORE
25/08/2025 Bertus Preller Children, High Court exclusive jurisdiction, Interdict, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Lis alibi pendens family law, Procedural Law, Procedure, Relocation, Urgency, Urgent applications appellate review discretion, best interests child principle, child relocation South Africa, Children's Court powers, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, compelling reasons appeal, constitutional children's rights, cross-border child disputes, custody relocation assessment, expert assessment relocation, family law jurisdiction, final interdict requirements, High Court exclusive jurisdiction, international child removal, leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, lis alibi pendens family law, non-joinder expert witness, parental cooperation relocation, reasonable prospects success, section 17 Superior Courts Act, Section 28 Constitution, statutory interpretation children's legislation, upper guardian role, urgency child matters, Western Cape High Court High Court Jurisdiction Over Child Relocation Upheld: N.T.R-F v J.A.L (Leave to Appeal) (2025/076576) [2025] ZAWCHC 377 (18 August 2025) – Expert Assessment Requirements and Appellate Prospects. Factual Matrix: Relocation Assessment and Parental Cooperation in Cross-Border Child Relocation The factual foundation of this Western Cape High Court decision reveals the complex procedural and substantive challenges inherent in… READ MORE