I.F and Another v B.B.D and Others (9797/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 77 (24 June 2019)

I.F and Another v B.B.D and Others (9797/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 77 (24 June 2019)

The court found that the applicants were entitled to an interdict preventing the release of R300,000 held in trust by the third respondent, as this was contractually provided for in clause 2.3 of the settlement agreement and intended to secure maintenance obligations. The applicants, now majors, have a direct interest in enforcing these obligations. The second respondent’s argument that his obligations were determined by a facilitator was rejected, as only a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance disputes. The court held that the German maintenance orders are not yet enforceable locally, but the funds should be preserved pending finalisation of local proceedings. As to the...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 77
Parties
Applicant: IF; Applicant: YF; Respondent: BBD; Respondent: BCF; Respondent: CFA; Respondent: ABC (PTY) LTD
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2019
Case Number
9797/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicants succeeded in obtaining an interdict over the R300,000 held in trust but failed to secure an anti-dissipation order over the remaining funds. The second respondent is ordered to pay half the applicants’ costs.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Interdict, Maintenance Enforcement, Anti Dissipation Order, Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, Trust Funds Preservation
Civil Procedure Family and Children Interdict Maintenance Enforcement Anti Dissipation Order Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act Trust Funds Preservation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IF

Applicant

YF

Applicant

BBD

Respondent

BCF

Respondent

CFA

Respondent

ABC (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent should be interdicted from releasing R300,000 held in trust to the second respondent pending finalisation of maintenance proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an anti-dissipation order over additional funds held in trust for the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement clause 2.3 creates a contractual right for the applicants to preserve the trust funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were entitled to an interdict preventing the release of R300,000 held in trust by the third respondent, as this was contractually provided for in clause 2.3 of the settlement agreement and intended to secure maintenance obligations. The applicants, now majors, have a direct interest in enforcing these obligations. The second respondent’s argument that his obligations were determined by a facilitator was rejected, as only a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance disputes. The court held that the German maintenance orders are not yet enforceable locally, but the funds should be preserved pending finalisation of local proceedings. As to the...

Court Disposition

The applicants succeeded in obtaining an interdict over the R300,000 held in trust but failed to secure an anti-dissipation order over the remaining funds. The second respondent is ordered to pay half the applicants’ costs.

Orders

  • The third respondent attorneys are interdicted, pending finalisation of proceedings under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act 80 of 1963, from making payment to the second respondent of the sum of R300,000 held in trust in terms of clause 2.3 of the settlement agreement dated 5 December 2017 entered...
  • The further relief sought by the applicants in respect of the balance of the funds held in trust by the third respondent attorneys for the second respondent is refused.