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
21/09/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Appeal, Appealability, Costs, Costs de bonis propriis, Divorce, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Maintenance Court, Pendente Lite, Rule 43 Appeal, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance AF v MF, AG v LG, Attorney and Client Costs, BE v NT SCA, contribution towards costs, costs de bonis propriis, curator ad litem, Dicker NO v SJVDW, EB v CB Free State, family law South Africa, hopeless application costs, interim relief divorce, leave to appeal Rule 43, maintenance pendente lite, Pangarker J, past legal costs Rule 43, postponement Rule 43, Practice Directive 45B, refusal of postponement appealable, RM v AM, Rule 43, Rule 43 appeal, Rule 43(1)(b), Rule 43(6) variation, Rule 58 Magistrates Court, S v S Constitutional Court, section 16(3) Superior Courts Act, section 173 Constitution, Western Cape High Court Rule 43 Orders Cannot Be Appealed, and Persisting Costs the Attorney: Dicker NO v S.J.V.D.W (Leave to Appeal) (2026/006447) [2026] ZAWCHC 482 (7 September 2026). The Western Cape Division has once again been called upon to restate what ought by now to be trite in every family law practice in the country: orders granted in… READ MORE
30/08/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Contumacious conduct, Divorce, Litigation misconduct, Procedural Law, Spousal Maintenance, Substantial misconduct, Substantial misconduct, Vexatious litigation change of front, conduct of parties, costs Rule 28(9), divorce amendment, divorce counterclaim, divorce pleadings, facta probantia, family law South Africa, irrelevant matter, J.P v M.P, Jowell v Bramwell-Jones, leave to amend, maintenance claim, matrimonial misconduct, Moolman v Estate Moolman, no-fault divorce, pleading evidence, Rule 18(4), Rule 23, Rule 28, S.T.H v A.T.H, scandalous allegations, Section 7(2) Divorce Act, spousal maintenance, striking out, Vaatz v Law Society, vexatious pleadings, Western Cape High Court, withdrawal of admission Pleading Fault in a No-Fault Divorce: When Do Conduct Allegations Cross the Line? J.P v M.P (13220/2021) [2026] ZAWCHC 410 (12 August 2026). Few interlocutory judgments manage to say something useful about both civil procedure and substantive family law in the same breath. The recent decision of Greig AJ in the Western Cape… READ MORE
17/08/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenance, Child Maintenance, Children, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Maintenance Court, Procedural Law, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance ad factum praestandum, attorney and own client costs, Bannatyne v Bannatyne, committal, contempt of court, Divorce, Divorce Attorney Cape Town, dolus eventualis, emoluments attachment, Fakie v CCII Systems, family law South Africa, Firestone v Genticuro, HG v AG, interim maintenance, M.D.V v F.M.D.V, maintenance enforcement, Maintenance Order, mala fides, medical aid, Pheko v Ekurhuleni, purging contempt, reimbursement of expenses, Rule 43, spousal maintenance, Suspended Sentence, Western Cape High Court, wilfulness, Writ of Execution, ZAWCHC 411 Pay Now, Argue Never: Husband’s Selective Compliance with Rule 43 Maintenance Order Lands Him a Suspended Prison Sentence — M.D.V v F.M.D.V (2025/091265) [2026] ZAWCHC 411 (14 August 2026). The Western Cape Division has once again demonstrated that it will not tolerate maintenance debtors who treat interim maintenance orders as optional, negotiable or subject to their own private assessment… READ MORE
28/07/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Bystander test, Child Maintenance, Children, Consent paper rectification, Divorce, Divorce settlement agreement, Dum casta clause, Educational expenses divorce, Holiday allowance maintenance, Implied terms contract, Maintenance, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order variation, Medical expenses divorce, rReasonableness of maintenance expenses, Spousal Maintenance best interests of the child, business efficacy, bystander test, citing a trust in litigation, consent paper rectification, contempt of court maintenance, Divorce Attorney Cape Town, divorce settlement agreement, dum casta clause, educational expenses divorce, Endumeni interpretation, family law South Africa, good faith negotiation, holiday allowance maintenance, implied terms contract, maintenance disputes, maintenance order variation, medical expenses divorce, post-divorce litigation, public policy contracts, reasonableness of maintenance expenses, rectification of agreement, RJS v LAS, trustees representative capacity, upper guardian of minor children, variation of consent paper, Western Cape High Court, Wille J, ZAWCHC 377 The Limitless Gold Credit Card Myth: Why “All” Maintenance Expenses Must Still Be Reasonable — R.J.S and Others v L.A.S (A228/2025) [2026] ZAWCHC 377 (27 July 2026). The Facts: A Consent Paper and a Tsunami of Post-Divorce Litigation The judgment of Wille J in R.J.S and Others v L.A.S (A228/2025) ZAWCHC 377 (27 July 2026) arises from… READ MORE
25/06/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Child Maintenance, Children, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Divorce, Financial non-disclosure, Maintenance, Maintenance Court, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Non-disclosure consequences, Plascon Evans Rule, Post-divorce maintenance, Post-divorce maintenance enforcement, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings Arrear Maintenance, Attorney and Client Costs, beyond reasonable doubt, child maintenance, Civil Contempt, contempt of court, Contempt Proceedings, Davis AJ, Dezius v Dezius, Divorce Act, dolus eventualis, Eke v Parsons, evidential burden, Fakie v CCII Systems, family law South Africa, financial disclosure, full and frank disclosure, inability to pay defence, luxuries non-essentials, maintenance court variation, maintenance debtor, Maintenance Order, parental maintenance obligations, Pheko v Ekurhuleni, Plascon-Evans rule, poverty defence, settlement agreement order of court, Western Cape High Court, wilful and mala fide When “I Can’t Pay” Becomes Contempt: Luxuries, Maintenance Arrears and the Duty of Full Disclosure in D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) [2026] ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026). D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026) The facts: a maintenance debtor who paid for luxuries before his children The applicant and respondent divorced in 2015. In terms… READ MORE
05/06/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Balance of probabilities, Domestic Violence, Emotional Abuse, Irreparable harm test, Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, Spoliation accrual system, balance of probabilities, civil remedies, divorce proceedings, domestic relationship, domestic violence, Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, emotional abuse, evidence affidavit, family law South Africa, final protection order, Gauteng Division, harm threshold, High Court appeal, IKM v GRM, interdict, Interim Protection Order, magistrates court, matrimonial property, protection order, protection order misuse, psychological harm, Rule 43, section 1 DVA, section 6(4) DVA, spoliation, warrant of arrest, Wentzel J, Wilson J, ZAGPJHC 461 When Collecting Your Own Car Is Not Domestic Violence — IKM v GRM (A2025-156276) [2026] ZAGPJHC 461 (7 May 2026). The Facts: A Car, a Parking Lot, and a Protection Order The parties in IKM v GRM (A2025-156276) ZAGPJHC 461 (7 May 2026), decided by Wilson J (with whom Wentzel… READ MORE
26/05/2026 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Custody, Economic precarity, Family Advocate, Jurisdiction of convenience, Ordinary residence of child, Primary residence dispute, Psychological vulnerability, Relocation, Section 28 Constitution, Section 29 Children's Act, Unilateral relocation best interests of the child, BLFM v GJM, child relocation Eastern Cape, Contact rights, Coopers v Deutsche Gesellschaft, custody and care, economic precarity, expert evidence family law, Family Advocate recommendation, family law South Africa, FS v JJ, Gauteng Division Johannesburg, High Court jurisdiction children, JS v WF, judicial discretion best interests, jurisdiction of convenience, MV Pasquale Della Gatta, NAN v CN, ordinary residence of child, parental rights and responsibilities, primary residence dispute, psychological vulnerability, relocation dispute, section 20 Children's Act, section 21 Children's Act, section 28(2) Constitution, Section 29 Children's Act, SH v MLH, Wilson J judgment Jurisdiction Is Not a Border Post: Section 29 of the Children’s Act Reconsidered in H.M.M v D.M (2025/140422) [2026] ZAGPJHC 506 (19 May 2026). The Facts: A Relocation, an Expert Report, and a Jurisdictional Challenge The applicant, HMM, and the respondent, DM, were in a relationship for seven years and lived together for much… READ MORE
25/04/2026 Bertus Preller Attorney and client costs, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, constitutional rights of children, Contempt of Court, Costs de bonis propriis, Family Advocate, Lawyer-client alignment, Punitive costs orders activist intervention family law, attorney professional conduct, attorney withdrawal, best interests of the child, child care and contact, child custody disputes, Constitution section 1(c), contempt of court, costs de bonis propriis, Court Order Compliance, Fakie contempt, Family Advocate, family law South Africa, High Court contempt proceedings, High Court parenting disputes, lay assistant family law, Legal Practice Council referral, M.N v J.E, parental responsibilities and rights, parenting litigation, Rule of Law, S v Beyer, social workers, suspended fine, suspended imprisonment, unauthorised legal assistance, Uniform Rule 16(4), urgent child return order, ZAWCHC 189 When Activism Crosses the Line: Contempt, Child Welfare and Attorney Accountability in M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) [2026] ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026). The Facts: A Child Removed from the Father’s Care, an Urgent Return Order, and the Contempt Sequel In M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026), Pangarker… READ MORE
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