J.P v M.W (5299/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 183 (7 July 2021)

J.P v M.W (5299/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 183 (7 July 2021)

The court found that the applicant's actions in launching the main application were not motivated by the best interests of the children, but rather constituted parental alienation, as confirmed by the Family Advocate's report. The applicant's negative attitude towards the respondent and her conduct in seeking to curtail his parental contact rights were not justified. The court was not persuaded that another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the applicant's liability for costs or the adverse findings made against her. There were no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 183
Parties
Applicant: J.P; Respondent: M.W
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2021
Case Number
5299/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Daniso
Legal Topics
Parental Alienation, Best Interests of Child, Costs Order, Leave to Appeal
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Alienation Best Interests of Child Costs Order Leave to Appeal

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.P

Applicant

M.W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success in an appeal against the costs order granted on 25 February 2021.
  2. 2 Whether there are exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for leave to appeal to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's actions in launching the main application were not motivated by the best interests of the children, but rather constituted parental alienation, as confirmed by the Family Advocate's report. The applicant's negative attitude towards the respondent and her conduct in seeking to curtail his parental contact rights were not justified. The court was not persuaded that another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the applicant's liability for costs or the adverse findings made against her. There were no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the order/judgment of this court granted 25 February 2021 is dismissed with costs.