H.M.V.A and Another v T.H.B (2024/056100) [2025] ZAGPJHC 645 (27 June 2025)

H.M.V.A and Another v T.H.B (2024/056100) [2025] ZAGPJHC 645 (27 June 2025)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide expert evidence or take steps to substantiate his claims regarding the alleged manipulation of the minor child or the purported excessiveness of the contact awarded to the applicants. The applicants, as grandparents, had played an integral role in the child's life, and the contact awarded was reasonable and in line with the child's best interests. The respondent's arguments were based on his own assertions without supporting evidence, and he did not approach the Family Advocate or seek expert guidance. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was not made on bona fide grounds and that there were no reasonable prospects...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 645
Parties
Applicant: VA, HM; Applicant: VA, E; Respondent: B, TH
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
2024/056100
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Contact Between Grandparents and Minor Child
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
KL Meikle
Legal Topics
Contact Rights of Grandparents, Best Interests of Child, Leave to Appeal Threshold, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contact Rights of Grandparents Best Interests of Child Leave to Appeal Threshold 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VA, HM

Applicant

VA, E

Applicant

B, TH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Contact Between Grandparents and Minor Child

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold for reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether the contact awarded to the applicants (grandparents) with the minor child was excessive or unsupported by evidence.
  3. 3 Whether mediation should have been pursued before litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide expert evidence or take steps to substantiate his claims regarding the alleged manipulation of the minor child or the purported excessiveness of the contact awarded to the applicants. The applicants, as grandparents, had played an integral role in the child's life, and the contact awarded was reasonable and in line with the child's best interests. The respondent's arguments were based on his own assertions without supporting evidence, and he did not approach the Family Advocate or seek expert guidance. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was not made on bona fide grounds and that there were no reasonable prospects...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the cost of one counsel on Scale B.