E.M.A v Y.M.N (12300/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 618 (10 February 2021)

E.M.A v Y.M.N (12300/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 618 (10 February 2021)

The court found that the best interests of the minor child required both the applicant and respondents to share the costs of the case manager, as both are responsible for promoting the child's welfare. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial incapacity to justify exemption from shared costs. The court also determined that the applicant's draft order substantially reflected the recommendations of the Prinsloo report, and minor amendments suggested by the respondents were incorporated. Regarding costs, the court held that the respondents' unreasonable objection to sharing the case manager's costs made the opposed hearing inevitable, and thus they should bear the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 618
Parties
Applicant: E[....] M[....] N[....]2; Respondent: Y[....] N[....]2 M[....]; Respondent: D[....] L[....]2 S[....] M[....]; Respondent: Westminster City Council Children and Family Services United Kingdom
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2021
Case Number
12300/2020
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Opposed Motion Hearing on Part a of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application granted in terms of Part A of the Notice of Motion, with costs of the case manager to be shared equally and respondents to bear costs of the opposed hearing, excluding affidavit preparation costs.
Judges
GB Rome
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Special Guardianship Order, Contact With Minor Child, Case Manager Costs, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Special Guardianship Order Contact With Minor Child Case Manager Costs Best Interests of Child

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E[....] M[....] N[....]2

Applicant

Y[....] N[....]2 M[....]

Respondent

D[....] L[....]2 S[....] M[....]

Respondent

Westminster City Council Children and Family Services United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Opposed Motion Hearing on Part a of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of the case manager should be shared equally between the applicant and respondents or borne solely by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are liable for the costs of the application or whether the applicant should bear them.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's draft order accurately reflects the recommendations of the Prinsloo report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the best interests of the minor child required both the applicant and respondents to share the costs of the case manager, as both are responsible for promoting the child's welfare. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial incapacity to justify exemption from shared costs. The court also determined that the applicant's draft order substantially reflected the recommendations of the Prinsloo report, and minor amendments suggested by the respondents were incorporated. Regarding costs, the court held that the respondents' unreasonable objection to sharing the case manager's costs made the opposed hearing inevitable, and thus they should bear the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in terms of Part A of the Notice of Motion, with costs of the case manager to be shared equally and respondents to bear costs of the opposed hearing, excluding affidavit preparation costs.

Orders

  • The applicant shall exercise contact with the minor child in accordance with the recommendations of Nellie Prinsloo as set out in part 25 of her report dated 14 May 2019.
  • The applicant and the first and second respondents shall, within three weeks, jointly appoint L[....]ie Henig as case manager to assist with contact arrangements; costs to be borne equally.