H v H (51099/2007) [2018] ZAGPPHC 480 (15 March 2018)

H v H (51099/2007) [2018] ZAGPPHC 480 (15 March 2018)

The court found that the applicant had made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to secure the respondent's cooperation in dividing the joint estate, and that the respondent's opposition was unsubstantiated and prejudicial. The Limpopo property was acquired during the marriage and thus forms part of the joint estate. The respondent's conduct, including his refusal to comply with previous court orders and failure to suggest an alternative liquidator, justified the appointment of the applicant's proposed liquidator and a punitive costs order. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought and that the respondent's actions warranted censure.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 480
Parties
Applicant: H, M E; Respondent: H, M J
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Case Number
51099/2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application / Application for Appointment of Liquidator and Receiver Post Divorce
Outcome
Application granted. Liquidator appointed. Respondent ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Shangisa
Legal Topics
Division of Joint Estate, Appointment of Liquidator, Settlement Agreement, Costs on Punitive Scale
Family and Children Division of Joint Estate Appointment of Liquidator Settlement Agreement Costs on Punitive Scale

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H, M E

Applicant

H, M J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application / Application for Appointment of Liquidator and Receiver Post Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the appointment of a liquidator and receiver to divide the joint estate.
  2. 2 Whether the Limpopo property forms part of the joint estate.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to secure the respondent's cooperation in dividing the joint estate, and that the respondent's opposition was unsubstantiated and prejudicial. The Limpopo property was acquired during the marriage and thus forms part of the joint estate. The respondent's conduct, including his refusal to comply with previous court orders and failure to suggest an alternative liquidator, justified the appointment of the applicant's proposed liquidator and a punitive costs order. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought and that the respondent's actions warranted censure.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Liquidator appointed. Respondent ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Phillip Jordaan of Divorce Settlement Services, Pretoria, is appointed as Liquidator of the joint estate between the applicant and respondent with powers and obligations as set out in Annexure 'MEH6' to the Applicant's Notice of Motion.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicant on an attorney and client scale.