Katz v Katz (437/87) [1989] ZASCA 42; [1989] 2 All SA 353 (A) (31 March 1989)

Katz v Katz (437/87) [1989] ZASCA 42; [1989] 2 All SA 353 (A) (31 March 1989)

The trial court misdirected itself by awarding the respondent half of the appellant's assets on the basis of a universal partnership, which did not exist in law or fact. The respondent's claim was properly based on section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, requiring proof of contributions to the maintenance or increase of the appellant's estate. The evidence showed that the respondent made contributions primarily through domestic services and some indirect financial support, but not to the extent of an equal partnership. The appellant's substantial estate was largely the result of his own business acumen and investments. The court held that a redistribution order should be made to enable the...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: Barry Eli Katz; Respondent: Hazel Pamela Katz
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1989
Case Number
437/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; redistribution order reduced.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Nestadt, Milne, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 7, Redistribution Order, Maintenance, Universal Partnership, Clean Break Principle
Family and Children Divorce Act Section 7 Redistribution Order Maintenance Universal Partnership Clean Break Principle

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Eli Katz

Appellant

Hazel Pamela Katz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding the respondent half of the appellant's assets based on the existence of a universal partnership.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent made contributions justifying a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act.
  3. 3 What quantum of redistribution is just and equitable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court misdirected itself by awarding the respondent half of the appellant's assets on the basis of a universal partnership, which did not exist in law or fact. The respondent's claim was properly based on section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, requiring proof of contributions to the maintenance or increase of the appellant's estate. The evidence showed that the respondent made contributions primarily through domestic services and some indirect financial support, but not to the extent of an equal partnership. The appellant's substantial estate was largely the result of his own business acumen and investments. The court held that a redistribution order should be made to enable the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; redistribution order reduced.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
  • The judgment of the court below is altered by substituting in paragraph 4 of the order the sum of R1,5 million for the sum of R3,5 million.