Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones (188/2011) [2012] ZASCA 19; 2012 (4) SA 164 (SCA) (22 March 2012)

Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones (188/2011) [2012] ZASCA 19; 2012 (4) SA 164 (SCA) (22 March 2012)

The respondent had been living in a permanent, stable relationship with another man, Mr Smith, for almost eight years prior to the divorce and was fully maintained by him. She failed to establish a need for maintenance from the appellant, as required by section 7(2) of the Divorce Act. The evidence showed that her financial needs were met by her new partner and she did not seek maintenance from the appellant until late in the proceedings. The high court erred in granting maintenance, and the appeal against the maintenance order must succeed.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Elwyn Dale Harlech-Jones; Respondent: Shirley Margaret Harlech-Jones
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Case Number
188/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
Appeal upheld; maintenance order set aside; only the divorce decree remains.
Judges
Mthiyane, Cloete, Mhlantla, Leach, Boruchowitz
Legal Topics
Maintenance After Divorce, Cohabitation, Divorce Act Section 7, Reciprocal Duty of Support
Family and Children Maintenance After Divorce Cohabitation Divorce Act Section 7 Reciprocal Duty of Support

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elwyn Dale Harlech-Jones

Appellant

Shirley Margaret Harlech-Jones

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to maintenance from the appellant upon divorce despite being fully maintained by another man.
  2. 2 Whether public policy bars a spouse from claiming maintenance when cohabiting with and supported by another.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established a need for maintenance under section 7(2) of the Divorce Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had been living in a permanent, stable relationship with another man, Mr Smith, for almost eight years prior to the divorce and was fully maintained by him. She failed to establish a need for maintenance from the appellant, as required by section 7(2) of the Divorce Act. The evidence showed that her financial needs were met by her new partner and she did not seek maintenance from the appellant until late in the proceedings. The high court erred in granting maintenance, and the appeal against the maintenance order must succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; maintenance order set aside; only the divorce decree remains.

Orders

  • The marriage between the parties is dissolved by decree of divorce.
  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the high court order are deleted; no maintenance is payable.