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
24/10/2024 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Best Interests of the Child, Child Maintenance, Children, Costs, Divorce, Family Law Court System South Africa, Financial Disclosure, Maintenance, Parental Rights, Procedural Law, Settlement agreements, Shared Residency attorney misconduct, attorney responsibility, Children's Best Interests, children's act, court officers, court protocols, court upper guardian, Divorce Act, Divorce Law, divorce maintenance, divorce proceedings, divorce settlements, family advocate investigations, Family Advocate role, Family Law, High Court judgments, judicial criticism, Legal Ethics, legal fees disallowed, legal practice standards, legal practitioner duties, maintenance obligations, professional boundaries, professional conduct, shared custody, shared residency, unopposed divorce, WhatsApp communication Attorney’s WhatsApp Blunder Costs Fees in Shared Residency Battle – P.V.Z v L.V.Z (047502/2024 ; 36830/2022 ; 064524/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1046. Shared Residency: Not Always the Default Solution for Divorced Parents In a groundbreaking judgment delivered by Acting Judge Haupt in P.V.Z v L.V.Z (047502/2024; 36830/2022; 064524/2023) ZAGPPHC 1046, the Gauteng… READ MORE
22/02/2024 Bertus Preller Appeal, Children, Mootness, Parental Rights, Procedural Law, Procedure best interests of the child, child custody appeal, child-centric approach, Children’s Court Randburg, contact order disputes, court's role in child welfare, custody and care arrangements, evolving family law practices, Family Advocate role, family dispute resolution, family law implications, forensic investigation for child's welfare, Gauteng High Court, interdisciplinary approach in custody cases, interim legal orders, judicial discretion in family cases, KA v KN, legal advocacy in custody cases, legal challenges in separation, legal precedents in custody cases, legal principles in custody, legal strategies in family law., mootness in law, new evidence on appeal, paramountcy principle in child law, Parental Rights, procedural norms in appeals, professional legal analysis, South African Family Law Navigating Child Custody Appeals: Insights from: KA v KN (A2023/055189) [2024] ZAGPJHC 147 (21 February 2024) and the Paramountcy of the Child’s Best Interests. In a case heard by the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg, an appeal was lodged against a contact order originally granted by the Children’s Court in Randburg.… READ MORE