L.S v J.S (23967/2012) [2024] ZAGPJHC 653 (2 August 2024)

L.S v J.S (23967/2012) [2024] ZAGPJHC 653 (2 August 2024)

The court found that there has been a material change in the financial circumstances of both parties since the last Rule 43 order. The applicant's financial position has deteriorated due to loss of business interests, liquidation of assets, and increased liabilities, and he now lives a comparatively humble existence. The respondent, previously unemployed, is now earning a significant monthly salary. The evidence does not support the respondent's contention that the applicant possesses undisclosed wealth. The respondent's current lifestyle and expenses are not sustainable given the changed circumstances. The court is not empowered under Rule 43 to order eviction or relocation of the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 653
Parties
Applicant: S[…], D[…] L[…]; Respondent: S[…], J[…]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2024
Case Number
23967/2012
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Opposed Rule 43(6) Application and Counter Application
Outcome
The Rule 43 maintenance order is varied downward to reflect the applicant's changed financial circumstances. The respondent's request for increased maintenance and further contribution to legal costs is refused. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
L DE SOUZA-SPAGNOLETTI
Legal Topics
Maintenance Variation, Rule 43 Applications, Interim Relief, Contribution to Legal Costs, Change in Circumstances
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Variation Rule 43 Applications Interim Relief Contribution to Legal Costs Change in Circumstances

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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S[…], D[…] L[…]

Applicant

S[…], J[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Opposed Rule 43(6) Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in the financial circumstances of the applicant and respondent warranting a variation of the Rule 43 maintenance order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to an increase in maintenance and a further contribution towards legal costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's financial disclosure is adequate and whether he possesses undisclosed assets.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there has been a material change in the financial circumstances of both parties since the last Rule 43 order. The applicant's financial position has deteriorated due to loss of business interests, liquidation of assets, and increased liabilities, and he now lives a comparatively humble existence. The respondent, previously unemployed, is now earning a significant monthly salary. The evidence does not support the respondent's contention that the applicant possesses undisclosed wealth. The respondent's current lifestyle and expenses are not sustainable given the changed circumstances. The court is not empowered under Rule 43 to order eviction or relocation of the...

Court Disposition

The Rule 43 maintenance order is varied downward to reflect the applicant's changed financial circumstances. The respondent's request for increased maintenance and further contribution to legal costs is refused. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Rule 43 Order dated 30 August 2012 and paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Rule 43(6) Order dated 31 January 2017 are deleted and replaced as follows:
  • The applicant shall pay R28 000.00 per month to the respondent, with an annual escalation of 5% per year, pendente lite.