SAT v GJT (22224/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 890 (4 November 2022)

SAT v GJT (22224/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 890 (4 November 2022)

The court found that the parties are in substantial agreement regarding shared custody and joint parental rights, with only minor disputes about the appointment and funding of a parenting co-ordinator. The court held that the co-ordinator's role is to facilitate agreement, not to exercise binding decision-making powers. Regarding maintenance, the court determined that the respondent has not made full disclosure of his financial means, but the applicant's maintenance claims for the children were excessive given the shared custody arrangement and the respondent's direct payment of certain expenses. The court awarded R70,000 per month for the applicant and the children while in her care,...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 890
Parties
Applicant: SAT; Respondent: GJT
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2022
Case Number
22224/2019
Procedural Posture
Rule 43 Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce
Outcome
Interim orders granted regarding residence, contact, maintenance, and appointment of a parenting co-ordinator; application for contribution to costs refused; costs of application to be costs in the divorce action.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Interim Relief, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Spousal Maintenance, Child Maintenance, Contribution to Costs, Parenting Coordinator
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Interim Relief Parental Rights and Responsibilities Spousal Maintenance Child Maintenance Contribution to Costs Parenting Coordinator

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAT

Applicant

GJT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule 43 Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What interim arrangements should govern residence and contact with the minor children pending the divorce.
  2. 2 What is the reasonable amount of maintenance payable by the respondent to the applicant for herself and the children.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a contribution to her costs in the divorce action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties are in substantial agreement regarding shared custody and joint parental rights, with only minor disputes about the appointment and funding of a parenting co-ordinator. The court held that the co-ordinator's role is to facilitate agreement, not to exercise binding decision-making powers. Regarding maintenance, the court determined that the respondent has not made full disclosure of his financial means, but the applicant's maintenance claims for the children were excessive given the shared custody arrangement and the respondent's direct payment of certain expenses. The court awarded R70,000 per month for the applicant and the children while in her care,...

Court Disposition

Interim orders granted regarding residence, contact, maintenance, and appointment of a parenting co-ordinator; application for contribution to costs refused; costs of application to be costs in the divorce action.

Orders

  • The parties shall retain full parental rights and responsibilities in respect of their children as per Section 18(2) of the Children's Act, 38 of 2005.
  • The parties will continue to act as co-guardians of their children.