12/10/2024 Bertus Preller Costs, Divorce, Procedural Law, Separation Applications asset dissipation, Asset Division, attorney-client scale, business interests, community of property, costs order, court ruling, Divorce, evidentiary rules, Gauteng High Court, hearsay evidence, inadmissible evidence, joint estate, Legal Requirements, matrimonial dispute, Matrimonial Property Act, prejudice, prima facie case, Section 20, South Africa, Urgent Application, urgent relief, ZAGPPHC Divorce Drama Derailed: BTTM v NKM (054684 2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 992 Exposes Pitfalls of Hasty Matrimonial Asset Division – (1 October 2024). Background: A Marriage in Community of Property Heads for Divorce In the bustling corridors of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, a matrimonial dispute unfolded that would… READ MORE
01/06/2024 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Conduct of Childcare Experts, Guardianship, Parental Rights, Relocation, Views of the Child best interests of the child, child development, Child Relocation, child's views, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, clinical psychologist, co-parenting, competing interests, counselling psychologist, emotional well-being, expert evidence, Family Law, landmark decision, meaningful relationship, non-relocating parent, Parental Rights, parenting plan, reasonableness of relocation, relocating parent, relocation application, relocation assessment, relocation dispute, relocation factors, relocation hearing, relocation judgment, relocation order, section 28(2) Constitution, shared parenting, urgent relief V.L v F.N (4760/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 146 (30 May 2024) – A Court Decision in Family Law on Child Relocation. Introduction In the recent case of V.L v F.N (4760/2024) ZAWCHC 146, delivered on 30 May 2024, the Western Cape High Court was faced with a complex and emotionally charged… READ MORE
27/04/2024 Bertus Preller Appeal, Divorce, Maintenance, Procedural Law, Review, Rule 43 2019 (6) SA 1 (CC), access to courts, appealability, best interests of the child, constitutionality, contributions towards costs, differentiation, divorce proceedings, equality before the law, Equality of Arms, inherent power, interests of justice, interim care, interim contact, interim matrimonial matters, interim orders, legitimate government purpose, maintenance pendente lite, non-appealability, rationality test, regulate own processes, Rule 43, S v S and Another (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae), section 16(3), Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, Uniform Rules of Court, urgent relief, variation of order Constitutionality of Barring Appeals Against Rule 43 Orders: S v S and Another (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2019 (6) SA 1 (CC). Introduction: The Facts and Procedural History of S v S and Another The Constitutional Court case of S v S and Another (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2019… READ MORE
02/07/2023 Bertus Preller anti-dissipatory relief, Divorce, Interdict Bertus Preller, close corporation, Divorce, Divorce Attorney Cape Town, Divorce Attorney South Africa, divorce proceedings, husband, interdict, legal victory, matrimonial property, matrimonial residence, property dispute, selling property, urgent relief, wife Securing the Marital Home: A Legal Victory Halting the Sale of a Matrimonial Property Amid Divorce Proceedings MS v MJ GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER 2022/218731 - 13 June 2023 Introduction In this case the Applicant had sought urgent relief, aimed at prohibiting the First and… READ MORE