Hattingh v Hattingh (6125/07) [2008] ZAECHC 52 (14 February 2008)

Hattingh v Hattingh (6125/07) [2008] ZAECHC 52 (14 February 2008)

The court found that the applicant's claim for increased maintenance pendente lite was not supported by the facts, as the respondent already pays a substantial portion of his salary towards maintenance and related expenses. The applicant's contention that trust assets should be used was rejected because both parties, as trustees, must act jointly to authorise such use, and no such joint authorisation was provided. The applicant's failure to cooperate in the administration of the trust precluded her from complaining about the respondent's conduct regarding trust assets. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Susan Jane Hattingh; Respondent: Michael Gordon Hattingh
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Case Number
6125/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Second Application for Maintenance Pendente Lite
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
D Chetty
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Trust Assets, Joint Trusteeship
Family and Children Maintenance Pendente Lite Trust Assets Joint Trusteeship

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

Parties

Susan Jane Hattingh

Applicant

Michael Gordon Hattingh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Second Application for Maintenance Pendente Lite

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to increased maintenance pendente lite from the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether trust assets may be utilised to supplement maintenance payments.
  3. 3 Whether the trustees, being both parties, must act jointly in authorising use of trust funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim for increased maintenance pendente lite was not supported by the facts, as the respondent already pays a substantial portion of his salary towards maintenance and related expenses. The applicant's contention that trust assets should be used was rejected because both parties, as trustees, must act jointly to authorise such use, and no such joint authorisation was provided. The applicant's failure to cooperate in the administration of the trust precluded her from complaining about the respondent's conduct regarding trust assets. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for increased maintenance pendente lite is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.