L.V v L.V (2501/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 52 (15 September 2023)

L.V v L.V (2501/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 52 (15 September 2023)

The court found that the application for referral to oral evidence was not justified, as no material disputes of fact existed that could not be resolved on the papers. The report by Mr Eaton, commissioned by the respondent, did not raise factual disputes but highlighted shortcomings and omissions in the Family Advocate's report. The court held that these deficiencies could not be cured by oral evidence and that the only equitable remedy was to supplement the Family Advocate's report. Accordingly, the court appointed Mr Wesley Kew, a registered clinical psychologist, to conduct a comprehensive investigation and report on the best interests of the minor child SV, including her psychological...

Citation
[2023] ZAECQBHC 52
Parties
Applicant: L[…]1 V[…]; Respondent: L[…]2 V[…]
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
2501/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Referral to Oral Evidence Under Rule 6(5)(g)
Outcome
Application for referral to oral evidence dismissed with costs. Joint independent expert appointed to supplement Family Advocate's report. Main and counter-applications postponed sine die pending expert report.
Judges
V P Noncembu
Legal Topics
Children S Act, Best Interests of Child, Variation of Settlement, Parental Responsibilities, Relocation of Minor, Oral Evidence Application
Family and Children Civil Procedure Children S Act Best Interests of Child Variation of Settlement Parental Responsibilities Relocation of Minor Oral Evidence Application

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[…]1 V[…]

Applicant

L[…]2 V[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Referral to Oral Evidence Under Rule 6(5)(g)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter should be referred to oral evidence under Rule 6(5)(g).
  2. 2 Whether the Family Advocate's report is sufficient for determining the best interests of the minor child SV.
  3. 3 Whether a joint independent expert should be appointed to supplement the Family Advocate's report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for referral to oral evidence was not justified, as no material disputes of fact existed that could not be resolved on the papers. The report by Mr Eaton, commissioned by the respondent, did not raise factual disputes but highlighted shortcomings and omissions in the Family Advocate's report. The court held that these deficiencies could not be cured by oral evidence and that the only equitable remedy was to supplement the Family Advocate's report. Accordingly, the court appointed Mr Wesley Kew, a registered clinical psychologist, to conduct a comprehensive investigation and report on the best interests of the minor child SV, including her psychological...

Court Disposition

Application for referral to oral evidence dismissed with costs. Joint independent expert appointed to supplement Family Advocate's report. Main and counter-applications postponed sine die pending expert report.

Orders

  • The application for referral to oral evidence in terms of rule 6(5)(g) is dismissed with costs.
  • Mr Wesley Kew, a registered clinical psychologist, is appointed to investigate and report on the best interests of SV regarding relocation, care, contact, and residence.