L v L and Another (164/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 204; 2015 (4) SA 271 (FB) (30 October 2014)

L v L and Another (164/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 204; 2015 (4) SA 271 (FB) (30 October 2014)

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to the information and documents relating to the first respondent's pension fund interest, as provided for in the divorce order and section 7 of the Divorce Act. The applicant demonstrated that the respondents' refusal to provide the requested information caused her hardship and constituted an injury or reasonable apprehension of injury. The court held that the applicant had no alternative satisfactory remedy, as her attempts to obtain the information through negotiation had failed. The change in the name of the pension fund from Transwerk to Transnet did not affect the applicant's entitlement, as the benefits remained the...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 204
Parties
Applicant: B[...] L[...]; Respondent: F[...] J[...] L[...]; Respondent: Metropolitan Retirement Administrators
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Case Number
164/2014
Procedural Posture
Mandatory Interdict Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Mandatory interdict issued compelling respondents to provide information and documents regarding pension fund benefits.
Judges
E.K. Tsatsi
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 7, Pension Interest, Mandatory Interdict, Community of Property, Enforcement of Court Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Act Section 7 Pension Interest Mandatory Interdict Community of Property Enforcement of Court Order

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[...] L[...]

Applicant

F[...] J[...] L[...]

Respondent

Metropolitan Retirement Administrators

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Mandatory Interdict Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a mandatory interdict to compel the respondents to furnish documentation relating to the pension fund.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a clear right to the information sought regarding the pension fund benefits.
  3. 3 Whether the change in the name of the pension fund from Transwerk to Transnet affects the applicant's entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to the information and documents relating to the first respondent's pension fund interest, as provided for in the divorce order and section 7 of the Divorce Act. The applicant demonstrated that the respondents' refusal to provide the requested information caused her hardship and constituted an injury or reasonable apprehension of injury. The court held that the applicant had no alternative satisfactory remedy, as her attempts to obtain the information through negotiation had failed. The change in the name of the pension fund from Transwerk to Transnet did not affect the applicant's entitlement, as the benefits remained the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Mandatory interdict issued compelling respondents to provide information and documents regarding pension fund benefits.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered to furnish to the applicant, within 10 days of the granting of this order, a true and proper statement, together with substantiating documents, reflecting the value of the benefits paid to the first respondent in the Transnet Retirement Fund.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to furnish to the applicant, within 10 days of the granting of this order, a true and proper statement, together with substantiating documents, reflecting the value of the first respondent's pension interest in the Transnet Retirement Fund as at 14 October 2008.