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