H v M: In re: M v H (7389/16) [2022] ZAGPJHC 596 (23 August 2022)

H v M: In re: M v H (7389/16) [2022] ZAGPJHC 596 (23 August 2022)

The court found that the reserved costs of the urgent application were not disposed of by the parenting plan settlement. The applicant's refusal to return the child after the quarantine period was unjustified, and the respondent was entitled to seek urgent relief. However, once the child was returned and the tender made, the urgency diminished, but the respondent was still entitled to pursue interim relief regarding the child's schooling and primary care. The court determined that both parties acted in what they believed were the best interests of the child, and there were no special circumstances warranting a punitive costs order. Accordingly, each party should bear their own costs for...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 596
Parties
Applicant: H [....], D [....]; Respondent: M [....], J [....] E [....]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Case Number
7389/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Parenting Plan Order
Outcome
Application for punitive costs order dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs for the urgent application. Applicant to pay costs of the present application.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Primary Care of Child, Urgent Application Costs, Parenting Plan, Attorney and Client Costs
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Responsibilities and Rights Primary Care of Child Urgent Application Costs Parenting Plan Attorney and Client 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H [....], D [....]

Applicant

M [....], J [....] E [....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Parenting Plan Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party should bear the reserved costs of the urgent application heard on 6 July 2021.
  2. 2 Whether a punitive costs order should be made against any party.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement of the main application disposed of the reserved costs issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reserved costs of the urgent application were not disposed of by the parenting plan settlement. The applicant's refusal to return the child after the quarantine period was unjustified, and the respondent was entitled to seek urgent relief. However, once the child was returned and the tender made, the urgency diminished, but the respondent was still entitled to pursue interim relief regarding the child's schooling and primary care. The court determined that both parties acted in what they believed were the best interests of the child, and there were no special circumstances warranting a punitive costs order. Accordingly, each party should bear their own costs for...

Court Disposition

Application for punitive costs order dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs for the urgent application. Applicant to pay costs of the present application.

Orders

  • The application of the applicant for the respondent to pay the cost of the urgent application heard on 6 July 2021 on an attorney and client scale is dismissed with costs.
  • The parties are to each bear their costs in relation to the urgent application dated 6 July 2021.