27/02/2025 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Costs, Parental Alienation, Procedure, Relocation attorney-client costs, best interests of child, Cape Town High Court, Child Relocation, children's act, co-holder rights, co-parenting decisions, dance education, dance talent, Hermanus relocation, Judge Pangarker, maintenance increase, maintenance variation, material non-disclosure, mediation withdrawal, non-disclosure penalties, Parental Rights, parenting plan, professional assessment, punitive costs order, Rule 6(12), school change dispute, Section 31 Children's Act, Self-Created Urgency, South African Family Law, urgent applications Dance Dreams vs Parental Rights: How Self-Created Urgency Cost a Mother in C.H v L.H (32/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 11 (23 January 2025). The Facts: Dance Dreams and Relocation Dispute In the recent Western Cape High Court case of C.H v L.H (32/2025) ZAWCHC 11 (23 January 2025), Judge Pangarker was tasked with… READ MORE
23/12/2024 Bertus Preller Abduction, Appeal, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Holiday Travel, International Travel, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Procedure, Relocation Article 13(b), Australian courts, Central Authority, child abduction, child protection, child rights, child welfare, children's act, Constitutional Challenges, cross-border parenting, custody proceedings, domestic violence, Expeditious Proceedings, Family Advocate, grave risk defence, Hague Convention, international child return, international family law, international obligations, Judicial Discretion, judicial separation, legal precedent, Parental Rights, procedural delays, Protective Measures, South Africa, South African jurisdiction, Supreme Court of Appeal, time limits, undertakings, urgent applications When Time is Not on Your Side: Supreme Court Issues Urgent Warning on Hague Convention Delays in N M v Central Authority for Republic of South Africa and Another [2024] ZASCA 178 (19 December 2024). Introduction: A Child's Journey Between Two Continents The Supreme Court of Appeal recently delivered a landmark judgment in N M v Central Authority for Republic of South Africa and Another… READ MORE
20/05/2024 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Guardianship, Parental Rights, Procedural Law, Procedure, Schooling abuse of process, best interests of the child, biological parents, care and contact, child contact, Child Custody, children's act, consanguinity, costs order, court's discretion, Family Advocate, M M v N M and Others, minor child, Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods, Parental Responsibilities, Parental Rights, third-party rights, Uniform Rule 6(12)(b), urgent applications The Limits of Third-Party Rights in Child Contact: P.D and Another v A.R and Another (D779/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 27 (17 May 2024). Background of the case The case of P.D and Another v A.R and Another (D779/2023) ZAKZDHC 27 (17 May 2024) involved an unusual set of facts. The applicants, who were… 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
10/11/2023 Bertus Preller Alimony, anti-dissipatory relief, Divorce, Financial Disclosure, Maintenance, Rule 43 asset dissipation, attorney and client scale, Constitutional Rights, court discretion, divorce litigation, equitable access, financial analysis, financial disclosure, financial hardship, gender disparities, legal costs contribution, maintenance payments, matrimonial cases, matrimonial property, prolixity in legal documents, Rule 43, South African Law, Uniform Rules of Court, urgent applications Rule 43 in Action: Deciphering Court Orders on Contribution to Costs and Attorney-Client Scale Cost Orders in Divorce Cases. L.S.P. v R.S.P (2014/2941) ZAGPJHC 1281 (9 November 2023) Summary of the Case Introduction and Background Rule 43 Application: The plaintiff (Applicant) had filed a Rule 43 application in an… READ MORE