Fellgiebel v Bradley, In re: Ex Parte Bradley (2017/7949) [2017] ZAGPJHC 395 (12 December 2017)

Fellgiebel v Bradley, In re: Ex Parte Bradley (2017/7949) [2017] ZAGPJHC 395 (12 December 2017)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient reason to vary the maintenance order, given the persistent and documented difficulties in implementing the existing repayment model for medical expenses. The respondent's objections regarding mediation, alleged alienation, and potential abuse of medical aid were not supported by the evidence. The applicant maintained open communication and acted in the child's best interests. The proposed amendment would not increase the respondent's financial burden, as the medical aid scheme and level of cover would remain unchanged. The court held that the amendment would facilitate efficient medical care, reduce stress and acrimony, and...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 395
Parties
Applicant: Nicole Fellgiebel; Respondent: Philip Stuart Bradley
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Case Number
2017/7949
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The settlement agreement is amended to transfer the child from the respondent's medical aid to the applicant's medical aid at the respondent's cost. Respondent to pay applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale, including senior counsel.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Variation of Maintenance Order, Best Interests of Child, Medical Aid Obligations, Settlement Agreement Amendment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicole Fellgiebel

Applicant

Philip Stuart Bradley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether sufficient reason exists to vary the maintenance order to transfer the child from the respondent's medical aid to the applicant's medical aid.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's objections regarding mediation, alleged alienation, and abuse of medical aid are valid grounds to refuse the amendment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to punitive costs due to the respondent's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient reason to vary the maintenance order, given the persistent and documented difficulties in implementing the existing repayment model for medical expenses. The respondent's objections regarding mediation, alleged alienation, and potential abuse of medical aid were not supported by the evidence. The applicant maintained open communication and acted in the child's best interests. The proposed amendment would not increase the respondent's financial burden, as the medical aid scheme and level of cover would remain unchanged. The court held that the amendment would facilitate efficient medical care, reduce stress and acrimony, and...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The settlement agreement is amended to transfer the child from the respondent's medical aid to the applicant's medical aid at the respondent's cost. Respondent to pay applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale, including senior counsel.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement dated 17 May 2010, made an order of court on 20 July 2010 under case number 2010/17126, is amended by deleting clauses 3.11 and 3.12 and replacing them with a clause requiring the child to be registered as a dependant on the applicant's medical aid at the respondent's cost, with monthly...
  • The respondent is to sign all documents and take all steps required to facilitate the removal of the child from his medical aid (Discovery Medical Scheme, membership number 079068450) and enable registration on the applicant's medical aid (Discovery Medical Scheme, membership number 341667282).