Burger v Strydom and Another (54112/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 471 (19 May 2016)

Burger v Strydom and Another (54112/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 471 (19 May 2016)

The court found that the application was necessary and justified, given the first respondent's failure to unequivocally accept the termination of her mandate and to make all relevant documents available for the ongoing investigation into the minor children's welfare. The court emphasized that the best interests of the children had not been served due to delays and professional conflict. The first respondent's conduct, including her inconsistent stance regarding the termination and her reluctance to provide all documentation, warranted judicial intervention. The court confirmed the termination of Ms. Strydom's mandate, interdicted her from further involvement with the children except as...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 471
Parties
Applicant: Emile Burger; Respondent: Paula Strydom; Respondent: Irene Burger
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Case Number
54112/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; mandate of first respondent terminated; interdict and document production orders issued; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
H Kooverjie
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Termination of Professional Mandate, Access to Minor Children, Forensic Investigation, Misrepresentation of Qualifications
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Responsibilities and Rights Termination of Professional Mandate Access to Minor Children Forensic Investigation Misrepresentation of Qualifications

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emile Burger

Applicant

Paula Strydom

Respondent

Irene Burger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandate of the first respondent, Ms. Strydom, should be terminated.
  2. 2 Whether Ms. Strydom should be interdicted from further involvement with the minor children.
  3. 3 Whether Ms. Strydom is obliged to make all records available to Dr. Robyn Fasser.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was necessary and justified, given the first respondent's failure to unequivocally accept the termination of her mandate and to make all relevant documents available for the ongoing investigation into the minor children's welfare. The court emphasized that the best interests of the children had not been served due to delays and professional conflict. The first respondent's conduct, including her inconsistent stance regarding the termination and her reluctance to provide all documentation, warranted judicial intervention. The court confirmed the termination of Ms. Strydom's mandate, interdicted her from further involvement with the children except as...

Court Disposition

Application granted; mandate of first respondent terminated; interdict and document production orders issued; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The termination of the mandate of the first respondent is confirmed.
  • The first respondent is directed to desist from all further involvement, investigation and/or assessments in relation to the minor children, except as may be required by the case manager, Marilyn Davis Shulman.