04/02/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Costs, Family Advocate, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Mediation, Non-disclosure consequences, Pendente Lite, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Form Rules of Court adverse costs orders family law, clean hands doctrine, contribution to legal costs, contribution towards costs requirements, custody and contact disputes, Du Preez v Du Preez, duty of disclosure in divorce, duty of support spouses, equitable relief divorce, false affidavits maintenance, Family Advocate role, family law dishonesty, financial disclosure matrimonial proceedings, interim maintenance South Africa, maintenance court jurisdiction, matrimonial property disputes, Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, non-disclosure consequences, Office of Family Advocate, perjury in divorce proceedings, prima facie case legal costs, Rule 43 applications, Rule 43 costs orders, Rule 43(5) discretion, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance pendente lite, uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 43, Van Rippen v Van Rippen When Clean Hands Matter: The Fatal Cost of Non-Disclosure in Rule 43 Applications – S.J. J v M.M. J (2025/056214) [2026] ZAGPJHC 57 (2 February 2026). Factual Matrix: A Rule 43 Application Gone Wrong The parties married on 13 October 2012 in Johannesburg, out of community of property with the accrual system. Two minor children were… 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
24/06/2024 Bertus Preller Alimony, Child Maintenance, Children, Divorce, Financial Disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Rule 43, Spousal Maintenance Access to Justice, Bannatyne v Bannatyne, best interests of the child, care and contact arrangements, Cary v Cary, child maintenance, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, cost contribution orders, divorce proceedings, Du Preez v Du Preez, financial disclosure, financial transparency, Gender Equality, high-net-worth divorces, high-stakes divorce, interim maintenance, interim relief, L.E.A v A.J.A, Legal Costs, luxurious lifestyle, Mahikeng, maintenance claims, North-West Division High Court, Rule 43 Application, Section 28 Constitution, South African Law, Taute v Taute, trusts and business interests, WT v KT Balancing Luxury and Justice: High-Stakes Divorce and Child Maintenance in L.E.A v A.J.A (990/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 142 – (21 June 2024). Background: A High-Stakes Rule 43 Application Imagine a prominent business executive, Mr. A.J.A, and his spouse, Mrs. L.E.A, who live a life of luxury in a R25 million home, frequently… READ MORE