L L v Z J (1274/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 8 (30 January 2020)

L L v Z J (1274/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 8 (30 January 2020)

The court found that the respondent did not have the right to unilaterally amend the maintenance order, as the order required payment of R9000 per month, escalating annually, directly to the applicant. The respondent admitted non-compliance with the order and failed to produce any written agreement varying the order, as required by the Shifren principle. The court held that the Plascon-Evans principle was correctly applied, with the factual findings based on the respondent's own admissions. The respondent's conduct was found to be wilful and mala fide, demonstrating intentional disregard for the law. The court concluded that there was no sound, rational basis for a reasonable prospect of...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 8
Parties
Applicant: LL; Respondent: ZJ
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Case Number
1274/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Contempt of Court Finding in Maintenance Dispute
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Maintenance Orders, Contempt of Court, Plascon Evans Principle, Shifren Principle
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Orders Contempt of Court Plascon Evans Principle Shifren 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LL

Applicant

ZJ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Contempt of Court Finding in Maintenance Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (Mr LL) had the right to unilaterally amend a maintenance order of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted in wilful and mala fide contempt of the maintenance order.
  3. 3 Whether the Plascon-Evans principle was correctly applied in the adjudication of the contempt application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent did not have the right to unilaterally amend the maintenance order, as the order required payment of R9000 per month, escalating annually, directly to the applicant. The respondent admitted non-compliance with the order and failed to produce any written agreement varying the order, as required by the Shifren principle. The court held that the Plascon-Evans principle was correctly applied, with the factual findings based on the respondent's own admissions. The respondent's conduct was found to be wilful and mala fide, demonstrating intentional disregard for the law. The court concluded that there was no sound, rational basis for a reasonable prospect of...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order dated 29 November 2019 is reiterated and the respondent is ordered to comply with the payment and method as decreed in the court order dated 21 October 2010 under case 4839/2010.