Grimaudo v Dinwoodie (28072/2016) [2020] ZAGPJHC 329 (4 December 2020)

Grimaudo v Dinwoodie (28072/2016) [2020] ZAGPJHC 329 (4 December 2020)

The court found that, although the respondent used the impending lockdown as a reason to prevent contact, the regulations prohibiting movement between residences were about to come into force and would have made compliance with the contact order unlawful. Granting the relief sought would have exposed the applicant to criminal liability or forced him to retain the child for the entire lockdown period, which was not in the child's best interests. The court held that the application for contact during lockdown was ill-advised and that the relief sought had become academic. The costs order, including senior counsel's fees, was justified given the urgency and importance of the matter. There...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 329
Parties
Applicant: Grimaudo, Benito; Respondent: Dinwoodie, Taryn Lee
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2020
Case Number
28072/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
Judges
C Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Contact Rights, Covid19 Lockdown Regulations, Urgent Application, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Rights and Responsibilities Contact Rights Covid19 Lockdown Regulations Urgent Application Costs Award

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grimaudo, Benito

Applicant

Dinwoodie, Taryn Lee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to exercise contact with the minor child during the national Covid-19 lockdown period.
  2. 2 Whether the lockdown regulations justified the respondent's refusal to comply with the contact order.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in awarding costs, including costs of senior counsel, against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the respondent used the impending lockdown as a reason to prevent contact, the regulations prohibiting movement between residences were about to come into force and would have made compliance with the contact order unlawful. Granting the relief sought would have exposed the applicant to criminal liability or forced him to retain the child for the entire lockdown period, which was not in the child's best interests. The court held that the application for contact during lockdown was ill-advised and that the relief sought had become academic. The costs order, including senior counsel's fees, was justified given the urgency and importance of the matter. There...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.