Grimaudo v Dinwoodie and Another (2022/015642) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1002 (7 October 2024)

Grimaudo v Dinwoodie and Another (2022/015642) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1002 (7 October 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The order dismissing the main application was interim and preserved the status quo pending trial, thus lacking final effect and not being competent for appeal. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1002
Parties
Applicant: Grimaudo, Benito; Respondent: Dinwoodie, Taryn; Respondent: Robertson, Dorothy
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 October 2024
Case Number
2022/015642
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application With Costs
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
M Abro
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Best Interests of Child, Expert Evidence, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Best Interests of Child Expert Evidence Rescission of Judgment

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grimaudo, Benito

Applicant

Dinwoodie, Taryn

Respondent

Robertson, Dorothy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dismissing the main application is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling circumstances, particularly relating to the best interests of the minor child, that justify granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The order dismissing the main application was interim and preserved the status quo pending trial, thus lacking final effect and not being competent for appeal. The applicant’s reliance on new expert reports did not satisfy the requirements for rescission based on instrumentum noviter repertum, as these reports were not in existence at the time of the original order. The court was satisfied that it had properly considered the best interests of the minor child and that granting leave would only serve to delay finality, contrary to statutory...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application on scale C.