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
13/09/2026 Bertus Preller Appeal, Appealability, Civil procedure., Condemnation application, Default judgment., Divorce, Divorce settlement agreement, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Nullity of divorce order, Procedure, Recission, Separation of issues, Settlement agreements accrual claims, appealability, B v B, B v B 2026 ZASCA 115, civil procedure, condonation application, default judgment, Divorce Decree, divorce settlement agreement, final court order, functus officio, jurisdiction, lapsed appeal, matrimonial litigation, Matrimonial Property Act, nullity of court order, procedural fairness, prospects of success, reinstatement of appeal, rescission of judgment, Rule 33(4), Rule 42(1)(a), separation of issues, settlement agreement, South African divorce law, special leave to appeal, Superior Courts Act, Supreme Court of Appeal, Zweni test Crossing the Rule 33(4) Line: When a Divorce Order Becomes a Nullity in B[…] v B[…] (562/2025) [2026] ZASCA 115 (7 September 2026). The Facts and Procedural History: From Settlement Agreement to a Lapsed Appeal The litigation in B v B (562/2025) ZASCA 115 (7 September 2026) arose from a divorce that became… READ MORE
21/10/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Asset Disclosure, Children, Costs, Divorce, Fishing expedition discovery, Gender equality, Hostile Family Lawyers, Interim Maintenance, Irregular proceedings, Maintenance, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Procedural Law, Procedure, Prolixity, Punitive Cost Orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Rule 58 Access to Justice, accrual claims, attorney fees Rule 43, B.S v K.W.S 2025, catch me if you can divorce, Children's Best Interests, constitutional implications maintenance, contribution to legal costs, E v E full court, financial disclosure divorce, financially weaker spouse, full and frank disclosure, gender equality divorce, hiding assets divorce, interim relief pending divorce, interim spousal maintenance, KwaZulu-Natal High Court, length of court papers, maintenance pendente lite, matrimonial litigation, matrimonial property disputes, prolixity in divorce proceedings, relevant versus irrelevant evidence, Rule 43 applications, S.M v N.M 2024, South African Family Law, standard of living divorce, striking off applications, Uniform Rule 43 When Brevity Becomes Brutality: S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 54 versus B.S v K.W.S (2025/027511) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1085 – Has Striking Off Rule 43 Applications for Prolixity Gone Too Far? Two Cases, Two Outcomes: The Factual Matrix of S.M v N.M and B.S v K.W.S The contrasting outcomes in S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) ZAKZDHC 54 (28 August 2024) and B.S… READ MORE
12/06/2025 Bertus Preller Costs, Divorce, Financial Disclosure, Rule 43, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 58, Spousal Maintenance, Variation Rule 43(6) Access to Justice, accrual system, banking statements, business interests, close corporation income, costs orders, court discretion, credit facilities, Divorce Act, divorce costs, divorce proceedings, evidence requirements, Family Law, financial disclosure, financial means assessment, High Court Judgment, inadequate disclosure, interlocutory applications, legal contribution, legal costs contribution, legal representation funding, litigation funding, material change circumstances, matrimonial law, matrimonial litigation, patrimonial benefits, Property Valuation, Rule 43 applications, spousal maintenance, uniform rules court Rule 43 Applications Dismissed: Financial Disclosure Failures Sink Litigation Funding Bid in J VW v P C VW (EL 514/2025) [2025] ZAECELLC 8 (27 May 2025). The Facts The parties were involved in a divorce action with patrimonial benefits and the accrual system being central issues. Before the court was an application for a further contribution… READ MORE
17/02/2024 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Arrears, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Rule 43 child maintenance, child welfare, contempt of court, court authority, court judgments, court orders compliance, divorce disputes, divorce proceedings, enforcement of court orders, Family Court, Family Law, financial capacity, interim relief, legal advice, Legal Ethics, legal obligations, Legal proceedings, Legal Representation, legal sanctions, Legal Strategy, maintenance orders, matrimonial disputes, matrimonial litigation, non-compliance consequences, parental obligations, paternal grandparents, personal responsibility, Rule 43 Application, South African Law Contempt and Conduct in Divorce Disputes: Navigating the Thin Line Between Legal Obligations and Personal Responsibility. – J.S.H v M.S.H and Others (1308/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 42 (16 February 2024). Background and Proceedings Initiated The case of J.S.H v M.S.H and Others, heard in the Western Cape High Court on 26 January 2024, under the judgment of Adhikari AJ, arose… READ MORE
22/01/2024 Bertus Preller Alimony, Divorce, Financial Disclosure, Maintenance, Rule 43 business interests, complete disclosure, complex finances, concealed assets, cost contribution, divorce proceedings, divorce scenario, equitable contributions, fair cost-sharing, financial disclosure, Financial Disputes, financial independence, financial non-disclosure, financial positions, financial stability, financial support, gender disparities, gender realities, Legal Costs, Legal precedents, Legal Representation, litigation expenses, litigation strategies, Marumoagae AJ judgment, Material change in circumstances, matrimonial litigation, Rule 43(6), South African Family Law, wealthier spouse Rule 43(6), Cost Contribution, and the Perils of Financial Non-Disclosure in South African Matrimonial Litigation. – G, Z v G, J.G.C (77979/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 7 (12 January 2024). Introduction In this intricate and legally significant judgment Marumoagae AJ presided over a Rule 43(6) application that illuminated key aspects of South African family law, particularly in the context of… READ MORE
03/12/2023 Bertus Preller Alimony, Divorce, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Rule 43, Spousal Maintenance attorney divorce, child support, contribution to costs rule 43, divorce proceedings, divorce settlement, equal representation, Family Court, Family Law, financial dependency, financial disparity, Financial Obligations, forensic accountant, gendered maintenance system, interim maintenance, Judicial Discretion, Legal Costs, legal fees contribution, Legal Representation, maintenance claims., marital standard of living, matrimonial litigation, Ozzy Osbourne reference, Rule 43 proceedings, South African divorce, spousal maintenance, urgent applications Legal Drama Meets Rock ‘n’ Roll: PILLAY AJ’s Ruling against Attorney/Respondent in a Rule 43 application with an Ozzy Osbourne Twist – J K v E K (15912/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 182 (29 November 2023) Background of the Case Marriage and Separation Details: The parties were married on 1 December 2012, with their marriage being out of community of property and incorporating the accrual system.… READ MORE