07/11/2026 Bertus Preller Appeal, Article 13(b) grave risk, Automatic Appeals under Section 18(4), Best Interests of the Child, Execution Pending Appeal, Hague Convention Age Limit (Article 4), Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, International Family Law, Protective Measures and Mirror Orders, Stay of execution, Views of the Child Article 13(b), Article 4 Hague Convention, Australia child abduction, best interests of the child, Central Authority South Africa, Chafin v Chafin, child over 16, Children's Act section 10, Children's Act section 7, exceptional circumstances, execution pending appeal, full bench, Hague Convention, Incubeta v Ellis, International Child Abduction, irreparable harm, Knoop v Gupta, Kusevitsky J dissent, Mirror Orders, Protective Measures, reportable judgment, return order, section 18 Superior Courts Act, section 18(4) automatic appeal, Supreme Court of Appeal Practice Directive 1/2024, Tyte Security Services, voice of the child, Western Cape High Court, Wille J A Hague Convention matter is not per se exceptional: when a return order must wait for the appeal. S C v L J H and Another (2026-105403) [2026] ZAWCHC 659 (6 November 2026). This case is about whether a High Court order directing the return of children to Australia under the Hague Convention may be put into operation under section 18(3) of the… READ MORE
25/10/2026 Bertus Preller Alter ego trust, Discretionary family trust, Discretionary trust, Discretionary Trust Divorce South Africa, Divorce, Former spouse, trust beneficiary, Joinder of trustees, Section 13 Trust Property Control Act, Trust beneficiary divorce, Trust joinder divorce, Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988, Trusts, Trusts alter ego, alternative remedy, anti-dissipation interdict, balance of convenience, company assets divorce, contempt of court order, contingent claim, Die Dros v Telefon Beverages, divorce litigation South Africa, EB v ER, ex parte reconsideration, family trust divorce, freezing order, Gauteng High Court Johannesburg, interim interdict, irreparable harm, KG v Minister of Home Affairs, Knox D'Arcy v Jamieson, out of community of property without accrual, piercing the corporate veil, preservation order, prima facie right, redistribution of assets, Rule 43 financial disclosure, Rule 43 maintenance, S.M v J.M, section 7(3) Divorce Act, section 7(5) Divorce Act, trust resolution independent trustee Freezing the Trust and the Company: Why a Section 7(3) Redistribution Claim Did Not Found a Preservation Order Against Separate Legal Entities in T.J.R v S.L.R and Others (2026-000369) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1181 (8 October 2026). This case concerns a wife, married out of community of property without accrual, who sought interim preservation orders over assets held by a family trust and a company controlled by… READ MORE
29/08/2024 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Appeal, Children, Costs, Divorce, Procedural Law, Rule 43, Rule 58 appealability, civil procedure, divorce proceedings, Family Advocate, Family Law, High Court, interests of justice, interlocutory orders, irreparable harm, judicial economy, magistrates court, Rule 58, Rule 60A, South Africa Family Law Feud: High Court Strikes Down Appeal in M.K v M.K (A2023/123739) [2024] ZAGPJHC 829 – (28 August 2024) Background: A Divorce Case and an Irregular Step Application The case of M.K v M.K (A2023/123739) ZAGPJHC 829 (28 August 2024) revolves around a divorce proceeding and an application made… READ MORE
02/02/2024 Bertus Preller Anti-Dissipation Interdicts, Divorce, Hiding Assets AB v JB [2016] ZASCA 93; 2016 (5) SA 211 (SCA), alternative remedies, anti-dissipation interdict, anti-dissipation interdicts, anti-dissipation interdicts in divorce cases, asset dissipation, asset management, asset protection, balance of convenience, Carmel Trading case, Carmel Trading Company Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Others (447/07) [2007] ZASCA 160; [2008] 2 All SA 125 (SCA); 2008 (2) SA 433 (SCA), Cases on dissipation of assets, concealing assets, Dissipation Interdict, divorce law evolution, divorce proceedings, equitable asset distribution, fair settlements, financial practices, Financial Settlements, financial transparency, interim relief, irreparable harm, judicial process, Knox D’Arcy case, Knox D’Arcy Limited v Jamieson [1996] ZASCA 58; 1996 (4) SA 348 (A), Langebrink v Langebrink 2017 JDR 1059 (GJ) and Gernetzky v Gernetzky [2007] JDR 0247 (E), Legal Framework, legal implications, Legal precedents, Legal Requirements, Mareva injunctions, Marital Assets, matrimonial law, Msunduzi Municipality case, Msunduzi Municipality v Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund 2007 (1) SA 142 (N), negotiation dynamics, prima facie right, RS v MS 2014(2) SA 511 GSJ, safeguarding assets, SR v DR and Another (2980/2007) [2022] ZAGPJHC 172 Safeguarding Marital Assets: The Crucial Role of Anti-Dissipation Interdicts in Divorce Proceedings. Understanding Anti-Dissipation Interdicts An anti-dissipation interdict is an order that prevents a person from disposing of or concealing assets during divorce proceedings. Unlike Mareva injunctions, which prevent a defendant from… READ MORE