R.M v L.M and Others (9727/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 49 (23 September 2013)

R.M v L.M and Others (9727/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 49 (23 September 2013)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the evidence indicated that the agreement regarding the proceeds of the Cape Town property was not independent of the overall divorce settlement. The applicant's own correspondence and conduct were inconsistent with his claim that only the nett proceeds, after liabilities, were to be made available. The court further held that the applicant did not demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as the second respondent's attorney and the parties' daughter, an attorney, provided undertakings that lawful obligations would be met. The balance of convenience favoured the first...

Citation
[2013] ZAKZDHC 49
Parties
Applicant: R M; Respondent: L M; Respondent: CORPCLO 841 CC; Respondent: Mooney Ford Attorneys
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Case Number
9727/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Divorce Action
Outcome
Application for interim interdict dismissed.
Judges
Thatcher AJ
Legal Topics
Divorce Proprietary Consequences, Interim Interdict, Joinder of Parties, Balance of Convenience
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Proprietary Consequences Interim Interdict Joinder of Parties Balance of Convenience

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R M

Applicant

L M

Respondent

CORPCLO 841 CC

Respondent

Mooney Ford Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Divorce Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining the payment of proceeds from the sale of the Cape Town property pending the divorce action.
  2. 2 Whether urgency and proper joinder of interested parties have been established.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a clear right or well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm justifying interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the evidence indicated that the agreement regarding the proceeds of the Cape Town property was not independent of the overall divorce settlement. The applicant's own correspondence and conduct were inconsistent with his claim that only the nett proceeds, after liabilities, were to be made available. The court further held that the applicant did not demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as the second respondent's attorney and the parties' daughter, an attorney, provided undertakings that lawful obligations would be met. The balance of convenience favoured the first...

Court Disposition

Application for interim interdict dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.