JK v JK (2020/40619) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1275 (11 December 2024)

JK v JK (2020/40619) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1275 (11 December 2024)

The court found that the previous order of Windell J related to a specific issue—alleged bullying by DB—which had since been resolved and was no longer relevant. Retaining that order would unnecessarily restrict the Family Advocate's discretion in investigating the current issue of shared residency. The court determined that the best interests of the child require a fresh investigation by the Family Advocate, without the constraints of the prior order. Regarding costs, the court held that both parties acted in the child's best interests in the earlier proceedings, and thus should bear their own costs. However, the husband's counter-application was misconceived and persisted despite...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1275
Parties
Applicant: JK; Respondent: JK
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Case Number
2020/40619
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application / Final Judgment After Counter Application and Draft Orders
Outcome
The matter is referred to the Family Advocate for investigation and recommendation regarding shared residency. The previous order prohibiting contact between L and C/DB is set aside. The parties must cooperate with the Family Advocate. No costs order for the proceedings before Windell J; costs of the current...
Judges
G Farber
Legal Topics
Shared Residency, Best Interests of Child, Family Advocate Investigation, Contact Rights, Costs Orders
Family and Children Shared Residency Best Interests of Child Family Advocate Investigation Contact Rights Costs Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JK

Applicant

JK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application / Final Judgment After Counter Application and Draft Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the previous order of Windell J should be retained and incorporated into the new order.
  2. 2 How costs of the proceedings before Windell J should be allocated.
  3. 3 How costs of the current proceedings before Farber AJ should be allocated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the previous order of Windell J related to a specific issue—alleged bullying by DB—which had since been resolved and was no longer relevant. Retaining that order would unnecessarily restrict the Family Advocate's discretion in investigating the current issue of shared residency. The court determined that the best interests of the child require a fresh investigation by the Family Advocate, without the constraints of the prior order. Regarding costs, the court held that both parties acted in the child's best interests in the earlier proceedings, and thus should bear their own costs. However, the husband's counter-application was misconceived and persisted despite...

Court Disposition

The matter is referred to the Family Advocate for investigation and recommendation regarding shared residency. The previous order prohibiting contact between L and C/DB is set aside. The parties must cooperate with the Family Advocate. No costs order for the proceedings before Windell J; costs of the current...

Orders

  • The matter is referred to the Office of the Family Advocate for investigation and recommendation as to whether shared residency is in the best interests of the minor child, L.
  • Pending the Family Advocate's recommendations, the respondent is allowed unrestricted contact in terms of the existing settlement agreement under Case Number 44604/2016.