J v J (A357/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 851 (10 December 2018)

J v J (A357/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 851 (10 December 2018)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm to himself, while the respondent demonstrated she would suffer irreparable harm if the maintenance order was not implemented. The appellant's denial of the respondent's financial distress was unsupported and perfunctory. The respondent's reliance on maintenance and lack of alternative income justified the section 18(3) order. The appellant's conduct, including abrupt cessation of payments and failure to comply with court directives, warranted a punitive costs order. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed as the requirements for admitting new evidence on appeal...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 851
Parties
Appellant: J,O; Respondent: J,K
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Case Number
A357/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Section 18(3) Order and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel. Application to adduce further evidence dismissed with costs. Costs of spoliation application awarded against first and second respondents on a party and party scale.
Judges
Swanepoel, Tolmay, Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Maintenance, Section 18 Suspension of Order, Exceptional Circumstances, Costs Punitive Scale, Adducing Further Evidence
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Maintenance Section 18 Suspension of Order Exceptional Circumstances Costs Punitive Scale Adducing Further Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J,O

Appellant

J,K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Section 18(3) Order and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 18(3) order granting execution of the maintenance order pending appeal was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established grounds for admitting further evidence on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not implemented.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm to himself, while the respondent demonstrated she would suffer irreparable harm if the maintenance order was not implemented. The appellant's denial of the respondent's financial distress was unsupported and perfunctory. The respondent's reliance on maintenance and lack of alternative income justified the section 18(3) order. The appellant's conduct, including abrupt cessation of payments and failure to comply with court directives, warranted a punitive costs order. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed as the requirements for admitting new evidence on appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel. Application to adduce further evidence dismissed with costs. Costs of spoliation application awarded against first and second respondents on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application launched on 7 December 2018 is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal is dismissed.