G v G (595/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 54 (24 March 2016)

G v G (595/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 54 (24 March 2016)

The court found that the nearly three-year lapse since the initial Rule 43 order constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying an increase in maintenance. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding essential future disbursements required to prepare her case, and only presented legal costs already incurred. Without evidence of necessary future expenses, the court could not quantify or justify a further contribution towards costs. The application for increased maintenance was granted in part, but the application for a further contribution towards costs was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 54
Parties
Applicant: A. C. G.; Respondent: G. G.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Case Number
595/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Variation Application
Outcome
Partially granted: maintenance increased; contribution towards costs dismissed.
Judges
N.W. Phalatsi
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Contribution Towards Costs
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Variation Maintenance Pendente Lite Contribution Towards 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. C. G.

Applicant

G. G.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the maintenance order under Rule 43(6).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a further contribution towards legal costs before the first day of trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the nearly three-year lapse since the initial Rule 43 order constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying an increase in maintenance. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding essential future disbursements required to prepare her case, and only presented legal costs already incurred. Without evidence of necessary future expenses, the court could not quantify or justify a further contribution towards costs. The application for increased maintenance was granted in part, but the application for a further contribution towards costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Partially granted: maintenance increased; contribution towards costs dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay maintenance to the applicant pendente lite in the amount of R13 000.00 per month from 1 April 2016, payable on or before the first of each month.
  • The application in respect of contribution towards costs is dismissed.