Bergh and Another v Van Rensburg NO and Others (17617/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 132 (23 September 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPPHC 132
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- B.R. du Plessis
- Case number
- 17617/09
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- B.R. du Plessis
- Case number
- 17617/09
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no clear or potential conflict of interest between the applicants and their minor children that would necessitate the appointment of a curator ad litem at this stage. The applicants, as guardians, are capable of representing the children's interests in the litigation. The request for immediate discovery was premature, as factual disputes may require referral to trial, at which point discovery can be ordered under the court rules. The costs order was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, and there is no basis for appellate interference. The order refusing the appointment of a curator ad litem is not final and may be revisited as litigation progresses. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- Applicants are ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
02
Material facts
Parties
Jacobus Wynandt Bergh
Applicant Counsel: AckermannMaria Louise Bergh
Applicant Counsel: AckermannLouis Hendrik Janse Van Rensburg N.O (As Trustee of the Marleen van Rensburg Trust)
RespondentMaria Elizabeth Catharina Janse Van Rensburg N.O (As Trustee of the Marleen van Rensburg Trust)
RespondentJacobus Stephanus Taljaard N.O (As Trustee of the Marleen van Rensburg Trust)
RespondentLouis Hendrik Janse Van Rensburg
RespondentMaria Elizabeth Catharina Janse Van Rensburg
RespondentJacobus Stephanus Taljaard
RespondentThe Master of the High Court
RespondentMaria Elizabeth Bergh
RespondentJacobus Wynandt Bergh
RespondentErik Janse Bergh
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Part a of the Main Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of Part A of the application.
- 02
Whether a curator ad litem should be appointed for the minor children regarding their interests in the trust.
- 03
Whether the court erred in refusing immediate discovery.
- 04
Whether the costs order was appropriate.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicants argued that a curator ad litem should be appointed for their minor children due to their interests in the Marleen van Rensburg Trust and potential conflicts. They contended that immediate discovery was necessary and that the costs order was unjustified. They maintained that the application for relief in Part B required procedural protection for the children and full disclosure.
- Respondent
- Respondents opposed the appointment of a curator ad litem, asserting no conflict existed between the applicants and their children and that the applicants, as guardians, could represent the children's interests. They argued that discovery could be addressed if the matter proceeded to trial and that the costs order was within the court's discretion.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
South African trust law; see Ex parte applications regarding minor beneficiaries
A curator ad litem is appointed only where there is a clear conflict of interest or inability of guardians to represent minor beneficiaries adequately.
- 02
Uniform Rules of Court
Discovery is generally ordered in terms of the court rules when factual disputes require referral to oral evidence or trial.
- 03
See: Kruger v Minister of Police 2014 (1) SACR 647 (SCA)
Costs orders are discretionary and appellate courts will not interfere unless the discretion was not properly exercised.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no clear or potential conflict of interest between the applicants and their minor children that would necessitate the appointment of a curator ad litem at this stage. The applicants, as guardians, are capable of representing the children's interests in the litigation. The request for immediate discovery was premature, as factual disputes may require referral to trial, at which point discovery can be ordered under the court rules. The costs order was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, and there is no basis for appellate interference. The order refusing the appointment of a curator ad litem is not final and may be revisited as litigation progresses. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Obiter and limits
- The interests of minor beneficiaries must be prioritised, but the absence of a clear conflict does not automatically require a curator ad litem.
- The court retains the power to appoint a curator ad litem at any stage should circumstances change during litigation.
- Discovery is a procedural matter that can be addressed if the application is referred to trial.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- Applicants are ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Ruling
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID AFRIKA
(NOORD GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
Saaknommer: 17617/09
Datum aangehoor: 21/09/2010
Datum van uitspraak: 23/09/2010
In die saak tussen:
Jacobus Wynandt Bergh.................................................................................1ste
APPLIKANT
Maria Louise Bergh..........................................................................................2de
APPLIKANT
en
Louis Hendrik Janse Van Rensburg N.O
(As Trustee van die Marleen van Rensburg Trust)........................................1ste
RESPONDENT
Maria Elizabeth Catharina Janse Van Rensburg N.O
(As Trustee van die Marleen van Rensburg Trust)........................................2de
RESPONDENT
Jacobus Stephanus Taljaard N.O
(As Trustee van die Marleen van Rensburg Trust).........................................3de
RESPONDENT
Louis Hendrik Janse Van Rensburg...............................................................4de
RESPONDENT
Maria Elizabeth Catharina Janse Van Rensburg................................../........5de
RESPONDENT
Jacobus Stephanus Taljaard...........................................................................6de
RESPONDENT
Die Meester van die Hooggeregshof..............................................................7de
RESPONDENT
Maria Elizabeth Bergh.......................................................................................8de
RESPONDENT
Jacobus Wynandt Bergh...................................................................................9de
RESPONDENT
Erik Janse Bergh...............................................................................................10de
RESPONDENT
UITSPRAAK
DU PLESSIS:
In hierdie saak het ek die A-deel van die applikante se aansoek aangehoor en dit van die hand gewys met koste soos tussen prokureur
en klient. Die applikante doen nou aansoek om verlof om teen daardie uitspraak en bevel appel aan te teken.
Die aansoek het ook 'n B-deel. Die B-deel, wat nog hangende is, is daarop gerig om trustees van die Marleen van Rensburg Trust te verwyder en te vervang met ander.
Die applikante se minderjarige kinders is, soos die applikante self, lede van 'n groep waaruit diskresionere begunstigdes van die trust gekies kan word. Vanwee hulle belang by die B-deel van die aansoek, is die kinders as respondente gevoeg. In die eerste bede van die A-deel van die aansoek vra die applikante dat 'n curator ad litem aangestel word "ten behoewe van die ... (kinders) rakende hul belange in die Marleen van Rensburg Trust" en om 'n verslag aan die hof uit te bring rakende die aansoek en die "voorgenome regshulp". Alhoewel die kinders 'n belang by die aansoek het, meen ek nie dat 'n ander hof sal bevind dat 'n kurator nou hulle belange by die trust moet behartig nie. Ek meen ook nie dat 'n ander hof tot die gevolgtrekking sal kom dat 'n kurator nou, terwyl die saak hangende is, daaroor en oor die aangevraagdC
regshulp verslag moet doen nie. Sodanige verslag sal immers die hof se beslissing ten aansien van die B-deel van die aansoek vooruit loop.
Ek moet daarop wys dat die aansoek beredener is en my uitspraak gegee is met die klem daarop dat 'n curator ad litem aangestel moet word om die kinders se belange by die litigasie (die B-deel van die aansoek) te behartig. EK het beslis dat die applikante nie aangetoon het dat daar 'n konflik of potensiele konflik tussen hulle belange en die van hulle kinders is nie, en dat hulle as voogde self die kinders se belange kan behartig. Gedagtig daaraan dat die kinders se belange vooropgestel moet word, mag 'n ander hof oordeel dat, al is geen konflik duidelik nie, die kinders se belange tog verg dat hulle deur 'n kurator verteenwoordig moet word en nie deur hulle ouers nie. Ek meen egter nie dat hierdie hof se weiering om nou 'n kurator aan stel finaal is nie. Na my oordeel kan 'n hof steeds besluit om, soos die litigasie vorder, 'n kurator aan te stel. Bygevolg meen ek nie dat verlof toe appel toegestaan moet word nie omdat die bevel in daardie opsig nie finaal is nie.
Die A-deel van die aansoek was verder gerig op blootlegging. Alhoewel, soos mnr Ackermann vir die applikante my meegedeel het, die
applikante verplig was om die regshulp in die B-deel by wyse van aansoek, en nie by wyse van aksie nie, aan te vra, meen ek steeds dat die feitegeskille sodanig is dat die aansoek waarskynlik vir verhoor verwys sal moet word. As dit gebeur, kan blootlegging ingevolge die Hofreels bekom word. Ek meen nie dat 'n ander hof tot die gevolgtrekking sal kom dat daar nou reeds blootlegging gelas moes word nie.
Wat die kostebevel betref, meen ek nie dat 'n hof van appel met die diskresie van hierdie hof sal inmeng nie.
Die aansoek om verlof tot appel word van die hand gewys met koste.
B.R. du Plessis
Regter van die Hooggeregshof
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.