P v P (21615/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 312 (7 November 2016)

P v P (21615/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 312 (7 November 2016)

The applicant demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying an increase in monthly maintenance, as the children now reside with her full-time. The respondent's concession warranted an increase, but the court determined that R85,000 per month was reasonable to meet the applicant's and children's needs. The respondent's counter-application to change the children's school was not competent under Rule 43, as the rule does not empower the court to order a change of school, only to vary monetary maintenance. The applicant's claim for a further contribution to trial costs was limited to costs incurred or projected since the previous award, as res judicata applies to the earlier...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 312
Parties
Applicant: G R P; Respondent: A M P
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2016
Case Number
21615/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application and Counter Application; Application for Further Contribution to Trial Costs
Outcome
The applicant's maintenance increased to R85,000 per month; respondent's counter-application dismissed; applicant awarded R350,000 contribution to trial costs in instalments; costs are costs in the cause; Rules 43(7) and (8) waived.
Judges
A A Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Contribution to Trial Costs, Variation of Interim Orders, Rule 43 Procedure
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Pendente Lite Contribution to Trial Costs Variation of Interim Orders Rule 43 Procedure

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G R P

Applicant

A M P

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application and Counter Application; Application for Further Contribution to Trial Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an increase in monthly cash maintenance under Rule 43(6).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's counter-application to change the children's school is competent under Rule 43(6).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a further contribution towards her trial costs since the previous award.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying an increase in monthly maintenance, as the children now reside with her full-time. The respondent's concession warranted an increase, but the court determined that R85,000 per month was reasonable to meet the applicant's and children's needs. The respondent's counter-application to change the children's school was not competent under Rule 43, as the rule does not empower the court to order a change of school, only to vary monetary maintenance. The applicant's claim for a further contribution to trial costs was limited to costs incurred or projected since the previous award, as res judicata applies to the earlier...

Court Disposition

The applicant's maintenance increased to R85,000 per month; respondent's counter-application dismissed; applicant awarded R350,000 contribution to trial costs in instalments; costs are costs in the cause; Rules 43(7) and (8) waived.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1.1 of the Rule 43 order granted on 23 September 2015 is varied by substituting R60,000 with R85,000 per month.
  • The provisions of Rules 43(7) and (8) are waived.