31/05/2026 Bertus Preller Conflict of Interest, Eviction, In Community of Property, Joinder, Joinder of convenience, Locus Standi, LPC Code of Conduct, LPC Code of Conduct, PIE ACT, Plascon Evans Rule, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Section 17 Matrimonial Property Act, Spousal Eviction Absa Bank v Naude, clause 3.9 legal practitioners, conflict of interest attorney, customary marriage community of property, direct and substantial interest, dispute of fact motion proceedings, Gordon v Department of Health, joinder of convenience, joint estate litigation, locus standi eviction, LPC Code of Conduct, Matjhabeng Local Municipality, N.C.M.W v P.S.K, necessary joinder, oral evidence referral, person in charge PIE, PIE Act eviction, Plascon-Evans rule, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Room Hire Co, Rule 6(5)(g) referral, section 17 Matrimonial Property Act, spousal consent litigation, spousal joinder eviction, universal partnership co-ownership, unlawful occupier, Western Cape High Court eviction, Wightman v Headfour, ZAWCHC 272 Eviction by One Spouse, Joinder of the Other, and the Conflict Trap: Lessons from N.C.M.W v P.S.K and Others (2025/218300) [2026] ZAWCHC 272 (29 May 2026). A recent judgment of the Western Cape Division, N.C.M.W v P.S.K and Others (2025/218300) ZAWCHC 272 (29 May 2026), is a useful teaching case. On its face it is a… READ MORE
19/12/2025 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Children's matters South Africa, Divorce, Hostile Family Lawyers, Lawyer-client alignment, Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, Litigation misconduct, LPC Code of Conduct, LPC Code of Conduct, Mediation, Parental Coordinator, Parental Rights, Rule 41A mediation notice, Zealous advocacy adversarial litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, attorney ethics children, best interests of child, child-centred advocacy, child-focused representation, children's matters South Africa, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, co-parenting relationships, collaborative family law, contact disputes, costs de bonis propriis, custody disputes, family law ethics, family law South Africa, family mediation mandatory, lawyer-client alignment, Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, Legal Practice Council, LPC Code of Conduct, mediation family law, parental alienation, parental conflict, parenting responsibilities, professional conduct family lawyers, Rule 43 applications, section 6(4) Children's Act, section 7 Children's Act, Van den Berg v Le Roux, zealous advocacy When Lawyers Become Warriors: The Dangers of Over-Identification with Clients in South African Children’s Matters. Introduction In high conflict childcare and contact disputes, lawyers sometimes align so closely with their clients’ positions that they become virtual proxies for parental animosity. This “over-identification” with clients, even… READ MORE
16/12/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Access to justice section 34, Attorney and client costs, Bona fide defence, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Discovery, Divorce, Duty to court, Good cause rescission, Hostile Family Lawyers, Inherent powers of court, Legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Muslim Marriages, Procedural Law, Procedural non-compliance, Procedure, Punitive costs orders, Rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(1) discovery, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), Section 173 Constitution, Serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, Striking out defence, Uniform Form Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious litigation, Vindicating court authority abuse of court process, Attorney and Client Costs, bona fide defence, chamber book applications, contempt of court, contumacious conduct, discovery obligations, divorce action, duty to court, family law litigation, good cause rescission, inherent powers of court, legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, maintenance claims, procedural non-compliance, punitive costs orders, rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), section 173 Constitution, section 60.1, section 60.2, serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, striking out defence, vindicating court authority, wilful default When the Court Draws a Line in the Sand: Striking Out for Serial Contempt and Abuse of Process in S.L v A.C (8030/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025). Introduction The case of S.L v A.C (8030/2021) ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025) serves as a stark reminder that access to justice does not mean access to courts on one's… READ MORE