The Background: A Matrimonial Dispute Turns into an Arbitrability Question
The recent judgment in VJ v VJ and Another (258/2023) [2024] ZASCA 92 (11 June 2024) has shed light on a crucial question in South African family law: Can arrear maintenance disputes be subjected to arbitration? This case, which reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, originated from the divorce between Mrs. E[…] V[…] J[…] (the appellant) and Mr. W[…] J[…] V[…] J[…] (the first respondent).
When the couple divorced on 4 June 2015, their decree of divorce incorporated a settlement agreement, known as a deed of settlement. This deed contained two key clauses: one entitling the appellant to spousal maintenance (which would cease upon her remarriage, cohabitation with another man, or death), and another stating that any disputes arising from the deed would be resolved through arbitration.
Several years later, in 2018, disputes began to emerge between the parties regarding the deed of settlement. An arbitrator was appointed, and an arbitration agreement was concluded in August 2020. However, the appellant never filed a statement of claim for these disputes, instead opting to approach the maintenance court in March 2021 to enforce the maintenance order and recover arrear maintenance under section 26 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998.
The first respondent objected to the maintenance court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the parties had contractually agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. The maintenance court dismissed this objection, but on appeal, the Free State Division of the High Court ruled that the issue of whether arrear maintenance was arbitrable fell within the purview of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 and could only be decided by the arbitrator.
This ruling set the stage for the Supreme Court of Appeal to grapple with the critical question of whether arrear maintenance disputes are indeed arbitrable under South African law, considering the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Maintenance Act. The VJ case thus transformed from a seemingly straightforward matrimonial dispute into a complex legal question with far-reaching implications for family law and alternative dispute resolution in South Africa.
The Crux of the Matter: Is Arrear Maintenance Arbitrable under Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act?
The heart of the dispute in VJ v VJ and Another (258/2023) [2024] ZASCA 92 (11 June 2024) revolved around the interpretation of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, which prohibits the submission of certain matters to arbitration. The section states that a reference to arbitration shall not be permissible for “any matrimonial cause or any matter incidental to any such cause.”
The appellant argued that the arrear maintenance dispute constituted a matrimonial cause or a matter incidental thereto, rendering it non-arbitrable under section 2(a). Conversely, the first respondent contended that the lis between the parties became res judicata upon the granting of the divorce decree, extinguishing the matrimonial cause and any incidental matters. The first respondent further characterized the dispute as one concerning the dum casta clause, which was agreed to be dealt with through arbitration.
To support his position, the first respondent relied on Brookstein v Brookstein (Brookstein) [2016] ZASCA 40; 2016 (5) SA 210 (SCA), where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that a delictual claim based on misrepresentation of accrual did not form part of the matrimonial cause. The court in Brookstein reasoned that once the divorce order was granted, the marriage and all its consequences came to an end, with any related issues becoming res judicata.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal in the VJ case found the first respondent’s characterization of the dispute to be ill-conceived. The court emphasized that the maintenance dispute stemmed from a court order, not the underlying settlement agreement. The appellant sought to enforce the order and recover short payments made by the first respondent, rather than to determine the validity of the dum casta clause.
The court also noted that the arbitration agreement concluded by the parties did not include arrear maintenance among the enumerated disputes. Therefore, the central question remained whether arrear maintenance could be considered a matrimonial cause or a matter incidental thereto, thus falling within the ambit of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act.
The High Court’s Misstep: Deferring the Jurisdictional Issue to the Arbitrator
In the VJ case, the Free State Division of the High Court erred by not making a definitive finding on whether arrear maintenance falls within the scope of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act. Instead, the high court deferred the decision to the arbitrator, either due to the arbitration clause in the deed of settlement or the arbitration agreement signed by the parties. The Supreme Court of Appeal found this approach to be unsupportable.
The arbitration clause in the deed of settlement was worded in a general manner and did not specifically identify the enforcement of maintenance as a dispute to be referred to arbitration. Moreover, the arbitration agreement, which contained a phrase stating that “the arbitrator should decide its own issues of jurisdiction,” was deemed irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it did not cover arrear maintenance.
The Supreme Court of Appeal emphasised that the arbitration clause did not express the parties’ intention to submit the enforceability of the maintenance order or arrear maintenance to arbitration. Consequently, the interpretation of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act became necessary to resolve the dispute.
The high court’s deferral of the jurisdictional issue to the arbitrator was a misdirection that the Supreme Court of Appeal sought to rectify. The apex court underscored the importance of courts making definitive findings on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions, particularly when they have significant implications for the administration of justice and the rights of litigants.
By failing to interpret section 2(a) and determine whether arrear maintenance fell within its ambit, the high court abdicated its judicial responsibility and left the parties in a state of uncertainty. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s intervention served to clarify the legal position and provide much-needed guidance on the arbitrability of maintenance disputes in South Africa.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s Verdict: Arrear Maintenance Falls within the Purview of Section 2(a)
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court of Appeal in the VJ case employed a comprehensive approach to interpret section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act. The court began by examining the language of the provision, focusing on the phrase “incidental to,” which, in its ordinary grammatical sense, denotes something happening in connection with or as a natural result of something else.
The court also considered section 3 of the Maintenance Act, which grants magistrates’ courts jurisdiction over all matters arising from the Act. The purpose of the Maintenance Act, which includes providing easy, cost-effective, and speedy resolution of maintenance complaints and enforcement of orders, was taken into account. The court emphasised that its interpretation of section 2(a) must align with the objectives of the Maintenance Act.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Appeal highlighted the powers bestowed upon the courts by section 8(1) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 and section 19 of the Maintenance Act to vary, rescind, or suspend maintenance orders. These powers underscore the ongoing nature of maintenance disputes and the courts’ exclusive authority to discharge or vary such orders.
Drawing on the reasoning in Ressell v Ressell 1976 (1) SA 289 (W), where the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement concerning post-divorce child access disputes, the Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act is broad enough to exclude arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders from the realm of arbitration.
The court found that the high court had misdirected itself by deferring the issue to the arbitrator, as the matter before the maintenance court pertained to the enforcement of a court order rather than a dispute over the underlying settlement agreement.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders are inextricably connected to the matrimonial cause or are matters incidental thereto. Consequently, these disputes fall squarely within the ambit of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act and are non-arbitrable.
The Implications: Safeguarding Access to Courts in Maintenance Matters
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in the VJ case has far-reaching implications for the administration of justice and the rights of parties in maintenance disputes. By holding that arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders fall within the scope of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, the court has affirmed the principle that access to courts in these matters cannot be ousted by private arbitration agreements.
This ruling safeguards the interests of maintenance recipients, who are often in a vulnerable position and may lack the financial resources to pursue their claims through arbitration. The court’s decision ensures that maintenance courts remain accessible and can continue to provide swift, cost-effective relief to those in need of maintenance support.
Moreover, the judgment reinforces the courts’ exclusive authority to vary, rescind, or suspend maintenance orders under the Divorce Act and the Maintenance Act. This preserves the courts’ ability to adapt maintenance orders to changing circumstances and ensures that the needs of maintenance recipients are adequately addressed.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a reminder that legislative provisions, such as the Maintenance Act, apply ex lege and cannot be superseded by private arbitration agreements. Parties cannot contractually waive their right to approach maintenance courts, as this would undermine the very purpose of the legislation.
In a broader sense, the VJ case highlights the importance of striking a balance between the principles of party autonomy and the protection of vulnerable parties in family law disputes. While arbitration can be an effective means of resolving certain matrimonial disputes, it is crucial to recognise that some matters, such as arrear maintenance, are of such public importance that they must remain within the jurisdiction of the courts.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment provides much-needed clarity on the arbitrability of maintenance disputes and reaffirms the courts’ vital role in ensuring access to justice for maintenance recipients. This decision will undoubtedly shape the approach to maintenance disputes in South Africa and serve as a valuable precedent for future cases.
Questions and Answers
What was the central issue in the VJ v VJ and Another case?
The central issue in the VJ v VJ and Another case was whether arrear maintenance disputes are arbitrable under section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, which prohibits the submission of matrimonial causes or matters incidental thereto to arbitration.
How did the Supreme Court of Appeal interpret section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act?
The Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act broadly, holding that arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders are connected to the matrimonial cause or are matters incidental thereto, thus falling within the ambit of the provision and rendering them non-arbitrable.
What was the significance of section 3 of the Maintenance Act in the court’s decision?
Section 3 of the Maintenance Act, which grants magistrates’ courts jurisdiction over all matters arising from the Act, was significant in the court’s decision as it highlighted the importance of aligning the interpretation of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act with the objectives of the Maintenance Act, which include providing easy, cost-effective, and speedy resolution of maintenance complaints and enforcement of orders.
How did the court distinguish the Brookstein case from the present dispute?
The court distinguished the Brookstein case, which dealt with a delictual claim based on misrepresentation of accrual, from the present dispute by emphasiSing that the maintenance dispute in the VJ case stemmed from a court order, not the underlying settlement agreement, and that the appellant sought to enforce the order and recover short payments made by the first respondent.
What powers are bestowed upon the courts by the Divorce Act and the Maintenance Act regarding maintenance orders?
The Divorce Act and the Maintenance Act bestow powers upon the courts to vary, rescind, or suspend maintenance orders, underscoring the ongoing nature of maintenance disputes and the courts’ exclusive authority to discharge or vary such orders.
How did the Ressell case influence the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision?
The Ressell case, in which the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement concerning post-divorce child access disputes, influenced the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision by demonstrating that section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act is broad enough to exclude certain matrimonial matters, such as arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders, from arbitration.
What was the High Court’s error in the VJ case?
The High Court erred in the VJ case by deferring the jurisdictional issue of whether arrear maintenance falls within the scope of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act to the arbitrator, instead of making a definitive finding on the matter.
How did the Supreme Court of Appeal address the High Court’s misstep?
The Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the High Court’s misstep by emphasising the importance of courts making definitive findings on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions, particularly when they have significant implications for the administration of justice and the rights of litigants.
What was the relevance of the arbitration agreement in the VJ case?
The arbitration agreement in the VJ case was deemed irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it did not cover arrear maintenance and did not express the parties’ intention to submit the enforceability of the maintenance order or arrear maintenance to arbitration.
How does the VJ case safeguard the interests of maintenance recipients?
The VJ case safeguards the interests of maintenance recipients by affirming the principle that access to courts in maintenance matters cannot be ousted by private arbitration agreements, ensuring that maintenance courts remain accessible and can continue to provide swift, cost-effective relief to those in need of maintenance support.
What does the VJ case highlight about the balance between party autonomy and the protection of vulnerable parties in family law disputes?
The VJ case highlights the importance of striking a balance between the principles of party autonomy and the protection of vulnerable parties in family law disputes, recognizing that while arbitration can be an effective means of resolving certain matrimonial disputes, some matters, such as arrear maintenance, are of such public importance that they must remain within the jurisdiction of the courts.
How does the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision reinforce the courts’ authority in maintenance matters?
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the courts’ exclusive authority to vary, rescind, or suspend maintenance orders under the Divorce Act and the Maintenance Act, preserving the courts’ ability to adapt maintenance orders to changing circumstances and ensuring that the needs of maintenance recipients are adequately addressed.
What is the significance of the VJ case in terms of the application of legislative provisions?
The VJ case serves as a reminder that legislative provisions, such as the Maintenance Act, apply ex lege and cannot be superseded by private arbitration agreements, emphasising that parties cannot contractually waive their right to approach maintenance courts, as this would undermine the very purpose of the legislation.
How does the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment provide clarity on the arbitrability of maintenance disputes?
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment provides much-needed clarity on the arbitrability of maintenance disputes by holding that arrear maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders fall within the scope of section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, thus rendering them non-arbitrable and affirming the courts’ vital role in ensuring access to justice for maintenance recipients.
What impact is the VJ case likely to have on future maintenance disputes in South Africa?
The VJ case is likely to have a significant impact on future maintenance disputes in South Africa by serving as a valuable precedent that shapes the approach to these matters, ensuring that maintenance recipients have access to the courts for the enforcement of maintenance orders and the resolution of arrear maintenance disputes, regardless of any private arbitration agreements.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: