M S v L S and Another (31480/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 37 (5 February 2020)

M S v L S and Another (31480/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 37 (5 February 2020)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency and did not establish a factual or legal basis for the relief sought. The applicant’s conduct in failing to pay school fees and attempting to separate the siblings was found to be contrary to the best interests of the children. The court held that the children’s best interests require stability and contact with each other, and that the applicant’s unilateral actions were unreasonable. The relief against the second respondent was denied due to lack of evidence of actual conflict or misuse of confidential information. The court ordered an expanded investigation by the appointed psychologist into the children’s...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 37
Parties
Applicant: M S; Respondent: L S (born L); Respondent: Manfred Jacobs
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Case Number
31480/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Merits After Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.
Judges
E F Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Best Interests of Child, Children S Act, School Enrolment Dispute, Conflict of Interest, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Best Interests of Child Children S Act School Enrolment Dispute Conflict of Interest Costs 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M S

Applicant

L S (born L)

Respondent

Manfred Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Merits After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted sole consent to enroll the minor children at a new school.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be allowed to arrange therapy for the minor children without the first respondent's consent.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent is conflicted and should be removed as attorney for the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency and did not establish a factual or legal basis for the relief sought. The applicant’s conduct in failing to pay school fees and attempting to separate the siblings was found to be contrary to the best interests of the children. The court held that the children’s best interests require stability and contact with each other, and that the applicant’s unilateral actions were unreasonable. The relief against the second respondent was denied due to lack of evidence of actual conflict or misuse of confidential information. The court ordered an expanded investigation by the appointed psychologist into the children’s...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Dr Lynette Roux is directed to conduct further investigations into the best interests of the minor children, including the effect of separation, therapy needs, residence arrangements, and suitable schooling.