Sarantos v Sarantos (7670/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 199 (19 April 2011)

Sarantos v Sarantos (7670/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 199 (19 April 2011)

The court held that the Western Cape High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the divorce action was instituted in Cape Town before the respondent's action in KwaZulu Natal, based on the date of issue of summons. The balance of convenience strongly favours Cape Town, as most witnesses and evidence relevant to the care and contact of the minor children are located there. The court found the respondent's removal of the children to be unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the Hague Convention, which South Africa endorses. The best interests of the children, including the need for proper evaluation of allegations and their special needs, require their return to Hout Bay...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Alexander Mark Sarantos; Respondent: Charmaine Dorothy Sarantos
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Case Number
7670/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Court
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to return the minor children to Hout Bay, Western Cape, pending further proceedings.
Judges
Weinkove
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Best Interests of the Child, Hague Convention, Urgent Interdict
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Custody Jurisdiction Best Interests of the Child Hague Convention Urgent Interdict

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Mark Sarantos

Applicant

Charmaine Dorothy Sarantos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Western Cape High Court has jurisdiction to order the return of minor children removed to another province.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's removal of the children constituted unacceptable conduct under the Hague Convention.
  3. 3 What forum is most convenient and appropriate for determining care and contact of the minor children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Western Cape High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the divorce action was instituted in Cape Town before the respondent's action in KwaZulu Natal, based on the date of issue of summons. The balance of convenience strongly favours Cape Town, as most witnesses and evidence relevant to the care and contact of the minor children are located there. The court found the respondent's removal of the children to be unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the Hague Convention, which South Africa endorses. The best interests of the children, including the need for proper evaluation of allegations and their special needs, require their return to Hout Bay...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to return the minor children to Hout Bay, Western Cape, pending further proceedings.

Orders

  • The respondent shall return the minor children to Hout Bay, Western Cape, forthwith.
  • The psychologist appointed shall be entitled to request either party to undergo CDT blood testing or other evaluations deemed in the best interests of the children.