Coughlan v Kossar and Another (15209/16) [2016] ZAWCHC 183 (25 November 2016)

Coughlan v Kossar and Another (15209/16) [2016] ZAWCHC 183 (25 November 2016)

The court found that the applicant's evidence of the first respondent's alleged intention to dissipate assets was based on hearsay and lacked sufficient credibility. The respondent provided a plausible explanation for the transfer of funds and denied any intention to defeat maintenance claims. There was no evidence that the respondent was a chronic defaulter or acting mala fide. Furthermore, reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between South Africa and Mauritius was available as an alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict, particularly irreparable harm and absence of alternative remedy, were not satisfied. Accordingly, the application for an anti-dissipation...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 183
Parties
Applicant: Tracy Coughlan; Respondent: Iwan Otto Kossar; Respondent: Sanlam Private Wealth Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Case Number
15209/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Return Day of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; rule nisi discharged.
Judges
Yekiso
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order Enforcement, Anti Dissipation Order, Interim Interdict, Reciprocal Enforcement, Hearsay Evidence
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Order Enforcement Anti Dissipation Order Interim Interdict Reciprocal Enforcement Hearsay Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Coughlan

Applicant

Iwan Otto Kossar

Respondent

Sanlam Private Wealth Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Return Day of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an anti-dissipation order restraining the first respondent from dealing with his assets pending an action for arrear and future maintenance.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for an interim interdict based on the alleged risk of dissipation of assets.
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence of mala fide conduct or intention to defeat maintenance claims by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's evidence of the first respondent's alleged intention to dissipate assets was based on hearsay and lacked sufficient credibility. The respondent provided a plausible explanation for the transfer of funds and denied any intention to defeat maintenance claims. There was no evidence that the respondent was a chronic defaulter or acting mala fide. Furthermore, reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between South Africa and Mauritius was available as an alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict, particularly irreparable harm and absence of alternative remedy, were not satisfied. Accordingly, the application for an anti-dissipation...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; rule nisi discharged.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The Rule Nisi issued by Veldhuizen J on 19 September 2016, and extended by Dolamo J on 26 October 2016, is discharged.