L.D.J v M.E.D.J (10998/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 623 (18 August 2014)

L.D.J v M.E.D.J (10998/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 623 (18 August 2014)

The court found that both parties contributed to the dispute regarding contact arrangements for the minor child, and neither acted in bad faith. The respondent's concerns about the child's emotional readiness for extended contact were reasonable and supported by expert evidence. The applicant was not compelled to bring the urgent application, as the respondent had made reasonable proposals for phased contact. The failure to phase contact was a shared responsibility. In family law matters involving children, the court should avoid burdening parents with costs orders unless one party acts unreasonably or in bad faith. Both parties acted in what they believed to be the child's best...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 623
Parties
Applicant: L.D.J; Respondent: M.E.D.J
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2014
Case Number
10998/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to pay their own costs for the urgent application brought in December 2013.
Judges
S Strauss
Legal Topics
Parental Contact, Best Interests of Child, Costs Award, Mediation in Family Law
Family and Children Parental Contact Best Interests of Child Costs Award Mediation in Family Law

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.D.J

Applicant

M.E.D.J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the urgent application brought in December 2013.
  2. 2 Whether either party acted unreasonably or in bad faith regarding contact arrangements for the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the ordinary rule that costs follow the result should apply in family law disputes concerning children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties contributed to the dispute regarding contact arrangements for the minor child, and neither acted in bad faith. The respondent's concerns about the child's emotional readiness for extended contact were reasonable and supported by expert evidence. The applicant was not compelled to bring the urgent application, as the respondent had made reasonable proposals for phased contact. The failure to phase contact was a shared responsibility. In family law matters involving children, the court should avoid burdening parents with costs orders unless one party acts unreasonably or in bad faith. Both parties acted in what they believed to be the child's best...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to pay their own costs for the urgent application brought in December 2013.

Orders

  • Each party is ordered to pay their own costs of the application brought in December 2013.