Lemmer NO v Rademan (17823/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 484 (30 November 2011)

Lemmer NO v Rademan (17823/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 484 (30 November 2011)

The court found that the applicant, as curator, had locus standi to bring the application, as her powers had been specifically extended by the Master. The respondent's conduct, including intimidation and threats, constituted an infringement of the patient's rights and justified the applicant's apprehension of further similar conduct. There was no adequate alternative remedy available. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied. However, the court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent limited, regulated contact with the patient, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the applicant. The rule nisi was confirmed and made final, with costs awarded against the...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 484
Parties
Applicant: Riana Lemmer N.O.; Respondent: Andre Keith Rademan
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Case Number
17823/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Hearing
Outcome
Final interdict granted with regulated contact; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Van Staden
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Locus Standi, Curatorship, Protective Measures, Contact Rights
Civil Procedure Family and Children Final Interdict Locus Standi Curatorship Protective Measures Contact Rights

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

Riana Lemmer N.O.

Applicant

Andre Keith Rademan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as curator, has locus standi to seek a final interdict against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a final interdict are satisfied in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct justifies the granting of a final interdict restricting contact and access.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, as curator, had locus standi to bring the application, as her powers had been specifically extended by the Master. The respondent's conduct, including intimidation and threats, constituted an infringement of the patient's rights and justified the applicant's apprehension of further similar conduct. There was no adequate alternative remedy available. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied. However, the court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent limited, regulated contact with the patient, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the applicant. The rule nisi was confirmed and made final, with costs awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted with regulated contact; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is prohibited from entering the residence at Reservoirweg 18, Somerset West, for as long as it is registered in the patient's name.
  • The respondent is prohibited from contacting the patient directly or indirectly, except for monthly visits of 15 minutes arranged in advance with the applicant. Such visits must occur in the presence of a person nominated by the applicant and are subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the applicant.