Brenkman v Bouwer (43606/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 592 (13 September 2021)

Brenkman v Bouwer (43606/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 592 (13 September 2021)

The court found that the Respondent was not in contempt of the previous order, as there was no clear evidence of wilful non-compliance. The term 'independent third party' was interpreted to exclude the Applicant's wife and mother due to concerns about impartiality and previous adverse statements. The court exercised its discretion to appoint specific individuals, including a social worker and Miss Roselina Masilala, as independent third parties for supervised contact. The application for contempt and amendment of the previous order was dismissed, but the court clarified the interpretation of 'independent third party' to avoid future disputes. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 592
Parties
Applicant: Neil Franciois Brenkman; Respondent: E’Zelle Phillippina Bouwer
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2021
Case Number
43606/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Clarification of Previous Order
Outcome
Application for contempt and amendment dismissed; clarification of 'independent third party' granted; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Baloyi-Mere
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Contact Rights, Supervised Access, Best Interests of Child, Urgent Application
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Contact Rights Supervised Access Best Interests of Child Urgent Application

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

Neil Franciois Brenkman

Applicant

E’Zelle Phillippina Bouwer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Clarification of Previous Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the court order dated 17 August 2021.
  2. 2 How 'independent third party' should be interpreted for supervised contact between Applicant and minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's wife or mother qualify as independent third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent was not in contempt of the previous order, as there was no clear evidence of wilful non-compliance. The term 'independent third party' was interpreted to exclude the Applicant's wife and mother due to concerns about impartiality and previous adverse statements. The court exercised its discretion to appoint specific individuals, including a social worker and Miss Roselina Masilala, as independent third parties for supervised contact. The application for contempt and amendment of the previous order was dismissed, but the court clarified the interpretation of 'independent third party' to avoid future disputes. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application for contempt and amendment dismissed; clarification of 'independent third party' granted; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The matter is enrolled on the urgent roll.
  • Prayers 2, 3, and 4 of the Applicant's notice of motion are dismissed.