Britz. J v Britz H. S (13899/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 677 (14 April 2021)

Britz. J v Britz H. S (13899/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 677 (14 April 2021)

The court found that the respondent was aware of the maintenance order and that it was served on him. Although the respondent's financial circumstances changed, as evidenced by his bank statements, he did not act willfully or mala fide in failing to comply with the maintenance order. The respondent attempted to vary the order but did not pursue the application to finality. The maintenance order remains effective until varied or set aside. Imprisonment was deemed inappropriate as it would prejudice both the respondent and his children. The respondent must continue to contribute to maintenance pending the outcome of the variation application, and urgent relief was justified due to the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 677
Parties
Applicant: Joanell Britz; Respondent: Hendrik Schoeman Britz
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Case Number
13899/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The respondent is not held in contempt of the maintenance order. The respondent is ordered to make specified payments towards arrear and ongoing maintenance, and to pay the applicant's costs.
Judges
MJ Mosopa
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order, Civil Contempt, Variation of Court Order, Urgency, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Order Civil Contempt Variation of Court Order Urgency 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanell Britz

Applicant

Hendrik Schoeman Britz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the maintenance order issued by the Pretoria Magistrates' Court on 26 October 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's non-compliance with the maintenance order was willful and mala fide.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be committed to imprisonment for contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the maintenance order and that it was served on him. Although the respondent's financial circumstances changed, as evidenced by his bank statements, he did not act willfully or mala fide in failing to comply with the maintenance order. The respondent attempted to vary the order but did not pursue the application to finality. The maintenance order remains effective until varied or set aside. Imprisonment was deemed inappropriate as it would prejudice both the respondent and his children. The respondent must continue to contribute to maintenance pending the outcome of the variation application, and urgent relief was justified due to the...

Court Disposition

The respondent is not held in contempt of the maintenance order. The respondent is ordered to make specified payments towards arrear and ongoing maintenance, and to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is not held in contempt of the Pretoria Magistrates maintenance order dated 26 October 2016.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay a once-off payment of R10,000.00 with immediate effect towards the arrear maintenance.