Buttner v Buttner (382/2004) [2005] ZASCA 86; [2006] 1 All SA 429 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 23 (SCA) (23 September 2005)

Buttner v Buttner (382/2004) [2005] ZASCA 86; [2006] 1 All SA 429 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 23 (SCA) (23 September 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misdirected itself by considering the absence of the respondent's direct contribution to her own assets, rather than focusing on the appellant's claim for redistribution as required by section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. Both parties had pooled resources and treated assets as joint throughout their marriage, and fairness demanded equal sharing upon divorce. The respondent's misconduct (adultery) was not the sole or predominant cause of the marriage breakdown and did not warrant depriving her of a redistribution order or maintenance. The respondent was entitled to a reduced share of the proceeds from the Brisbane house and a token...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 86
Parties
Appellant: Clive Thomas Buttner; Respondent: Cheryl Ann Buttner
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Case Number
382/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; trial court's order substituted. Application for security for costs dismissed.
Judges
Scott, Lewis, Van Heerden, Nkabinde, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Redistribution of Assets, Maintenance Order, Divorce Act Section 7, Judicial Discretion, Security for Costs
Family and Children Civil Procedure Redistribution of Assets Maintenance Order Divorce Act Section 7 Judicial Discretion Security for Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Thomas Buttner

Appellant

Cheryl Ann Buttner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in exercising its discretion under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act regarding redistribution of assets.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to a maintenance order and the appropriateness of a token maintenance award.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's application for security for costs should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misdirected itself by considering the absence of the respondent's direct contribution to her own assets, rather than focusing on the appellant's claim for redistribution as required by section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. Both parties had pooled resources and treated assets as joint throughout their marriage, and fairness demanded equal sharing upon divorce. The respondent's misconduct (adultery) was not the sole or predominant cause of the marriage breakdown and did not warrant depriving her of a redistribution order or maintenance. The respondent was entitled to a reduced share of the proceeds from the Brisbane house and a token...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; trial court's order substituted. Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent's application for security for costs is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal is upheld and the following order is substituted for paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo: On the defendant's claim in reconvention, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant the amount of R218,000.00, with interest at 15.5% per annum from the date of this order to the date of payment.