B (10128/2017; 44171/2017), R v [2018] ZAGPJHC 417 (5 June 2018)

B (10128/2017; 44171/2017), R v [2018] ZAGPJHC 417 (5 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant's conduct in both the assessment and travel applications was unreasonable and not motivated by the best interests of the minor child. His refusal to agree to a confidentiality clause and to consent to travel and passport arrangements was unjustified and necessitated litigation. The applicant only conceded to the relief sought at the last minute, causing unnecessary costs for the respondent. The precedents cited by the applicant were distinguishable, as they applied to cases where both parties genuinely believed they were acting in the child's best interests, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of both...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 417
Parties
Applicant: K R; Respondent: S B (nee R)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2018
Case Number
10128/2017; 44171/2017
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Substantive Relief
Outcome
Costs of both the assessment and travel applications are to be paid by the applicant (R). Substantive relief was settled; only costs were determined by the court.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Guardianship Suspension, Passport Consent, Minor Child Travel, Costs in Family Litigation, Confidentiality in Expert Assessment
Family and Children Guardianship Suspension Passport Consent Minor Child Travel Costs in Family Litigation Confidentiality in Expert Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K R

Applicant

S B (nee R)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's rights and responsibilities of guardianship regarding the minor child should be suspended pending finalisation of action proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for the applicant's consent for the minor child's passport and travel should be suspended until the child attains majority.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be compelled to conclude a mandate with an expert for assessment of access rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's conduct in both the assessment and travel applications was unreasonable and not motivated by the best interests of the minor child. His refusal to agree to a confidentiality clause and to consent to travel and passport arrangements was unjustified and necessitated litigation. The applicant only conceded to the relief sought at the last minute, causing unnecessary costs for the respondent. The precedents cited by the applicant were distinguishable, as they applied to cases where both parties genuinely believed they were acting in the child's best interests, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of both...

Court Disposition

Costs of both the assessment and travel applications are to be paid by the applicant (R). Substantive relief was settled; only costs were determined by the court.

Orders

  • B and R shall subject themselves, together with the minor child, to assessment by a suitably qualified psychologist, social worker or similar professional nominated by B on or before 30 June 2018, for the preparation of a forensic report regarding R's contact with the minor child. The psychologist shall be appointed...
  • R shall withdraw his request to the Family Advocate to conduct an enquiry and/or take such other action as may be necessary to prevent the enquiry from proceeding, as it would duplicate the ordered report.