G v De Vries NO and another (19549/05) [2009] ZAGPJHC 56 (14 October 2009)

G v De Vries NO and another (19549/05) [2009] ZAGPJHC 56 (14 October 2009)

The court found that the relief sought in prayer 1.3 regarding the settlement agreement was irregularly brought by interlocutory application, as it introduced a new issue not arising from the pleadings. The proper procedure would have been to amend the pleadings. However, the relief sought in prayers 1.1 and 1.2 was interlocutory and properly brought. The applicant's delivery of documents, though out of time and not strictly in the required form, constituted substantial compliance with Rule 35(6), and any missing documents could be rectified. The reply to the request for particulars was inadequate, as the alleged settlement had not been introduced into the pleadings, and the applicant was...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPJHC 56
Parties
Applicant: A.M.G.; Respondent: Louis Edward De Vries NO; Respondent: M.G.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Case Number
19549/05
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Reply to Request for Particulars for Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part; applicant ordered to deliver reply to request for particulars for trial; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Relief, Discovery and Particulars, Settlement Agreement, Division of Joint Estate
Civil Procedure Family and Children Interlocutory Relief Discovery and Particulars Settlement Agreement Division of Joint Estate

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.M.G.

Applicant

Louis Edward De Vries NO

Respondent

M.G.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Reply to Request for Particulars for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is required to deliver a reply to the first respondent's request for particulars for trial.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought in prayer 1.3 regarding the settlement agreement is properly brought by interlocutory application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's delivery of documents constituted substantial compliance with Rule 35(6).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought in prayer 1.3 regarding the settlement agreement was irregularly brought by interlocutory application, as it introduced a new issue not arising from the pleadings. The proper procedure would have been to amend the pleadings. However, the relief sought in prayers 1.1 and 1.2 was interlocutory and properly brought. The applicant's delivery of documents, though out of time and not strictly in the required form, constituted substantial compliance with Rule 35(6), and any missing documents could be rectified. The reply to the request for particulars was inadequate, as the alleged settlement had not been introduced into the pleadings, and the applicant was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; applicant ordered to deliver reply to request for particulars for trial; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to deliver within five days of the date of this order a reply to paragraphs 1 to 18 of the first respondent's request for particulars for trial delivered on and dated 4 August 2009.
  • Each party is to pay his/her own costs.