AM v NM (23365/2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 223 (4 July 2019)

AM v NM (23365/2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 223 (4 July 2019)

The court found that the applicant was justified in approaching the court on an urgent basis due to the time-sensitive nature of the visa application for the minor child's travel. The respondent's request for a blank consent affidavit was unreasonable, and withholding the signed consent affidavit was unjustified. The applicant's refusal to sign an undated consent affidavit was understandable. The court rejected the respondent's argument that mediation should have preceded the application, given the urgency and the prejudice that would have resulted. As the applicant was compelled to seek judicial relief, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party scale.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 223
Parties
Applicant: A M; Respondent: N M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2019
Case Number
23365/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Urgent Application for Contempt and Travel Consent
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
MIA
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Parental Consent for Travel, Urgent Application, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Parental Consent for Travel Urgent Application Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M

Applicant

N M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Urgent Application for Contempt and Travel Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was in contempt of the divorce order by refusing to sign the parental consent affidavit for the minor child's travel.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was justified in approaching the court on an urgent basis without first mediating.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was justified in approaching the court on an urgent basis due to the time-sensitive nature of the visa application for the minor child's travel. The respondent's request for a blank consent affidavit was unreasonable, and withholding the signed consent affidavit was unjustified. The applicant's refusal to sign an undated consent affidavit was understandable. The court rejected the respondent's argument that mediation should have preceded the application, given the urgency and the prejudice that would have resulted. As the applicant was compelled to seek judicial relief, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party scale.