A.J.B v I.B (115/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 165 (19 August 2021)

A.J.B v I.B (115/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 165 (19 August 2021)

The postponement of the trial was necessitated by the unforeseen illness of the Plaintiff's attorney, who tested positive for Covid-19 on the first day of trial. The Defendant was ready to proceed, and the postponement was solely for the Plaintiff's benefit, as he required his attorney's presence for the complex issues involving minor children. The court found that all relevant facts regarding the postponement and costs were before it and that the trial court would not be in a better position to adjudicate the costs issue. The Plaintiff, not being at fault for his attorney's illness, nonetheless stood to benefit from their presence, while the Defendant was prejudiced by the delay. In the...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 165
Parties
Plaintiff: A.J.B; Defendant: I.B
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Case Number
115/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Divorce Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.
Judges
G.J.M. Wright
Legal Topics
Divorce Postponement, Costs of Postponement, Best Interests of Children, Covid 19 Trial Disruption
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Postponement Costs of Postponement Best Interests of Children Covid 19 Trial Disruption

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.J.B

Plaintiff

I.B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Divorce Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the costs occasioned by the postponement of the divorce trial due to the Plaintiff's attorney testing positive for Covid-19 be borne by the Plaintiff or Defendant.
  2. 2 Is it appropriate to reserve the costs issue for adjudication by the trial court or should it be decided immediately.
  3. 3 Does the presence of minor children and the nature of the disputes affect the allocation of costs for the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The postponement of the trial was necessitated by the unforeseen illness of the Plaintiff's attorney, who tested positive for Covid-19 on the first day of trial. The Defendant was ready to proceed, and the postponement was solely for the Plaintiff's benefit, as he required his attorney's presence for the complex issues involving minor children. The court found that all relevant facts regarding the postponement and costs were before it and that the trial court would not be in a better position to adjudicate the costs issue. The Plaintiff, not being at fault for his attorney's illness, nonetheless stood to benefit from their presence, while the Defendant was prejudiced by the delay. In the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial on 10 August 2021.