Schenk v Douglas (47536/2009) [2010] ZAGPJHC 17 (5 February 2010)

Schenk v Douglas (47536/2009) [2010] ZAGPJHC 17 (5 February 2010)

The court found that the applicant's version of the oral agreement was corroborated by the respondent's own admissions in email correspondence, and that the respondent's later denial was inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The relationship between the parties and the nature of their settlement resembled a divorce arrangement, further supporting the applicant's claim. The court dismissed the respondent's point in limine regarding lack of particulars, holding that the context and background facts provided sufficient clarity. The applicant was entitled to payment of R917 400, representing the capital sum less the US$10 000 already paid, and to monthly payments of R3 500 from December...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 17
Parties
Applicant: Felicity Delphine Schenk; Respondent: Robert James Sholto Douglas
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2010
Case Number
47536/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Maintenance, Unmarried Cohabitation, Specific Performance
Civil Procedure Family and Children Oral Agreement Maintenance Unmarried Cohabitation Specific Performance

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicity Delphine Schenk

Applicant

Robert James Sholto Douglas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement for payment of R1 000 000 and monthly maintenance was concluded between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of R917 400 as the outstanding capital sum.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to monthly payments of R3 500 from December 2008 until payment of the capital sum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's version of the oral agreement was corroborated by the respondent's own admissions in email correspondence, and that the respondent's later denial was inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The relationship between the parties and the nature of their settlement resembled a divorce arrangement, further supporting the applicant's claim. The court dismissed the respondent's point in limine regarding lack of particulars, holding that the context and background facts provided sufficient clarity. The applicant was entitled to payment of R917 400, representing the capital sum less the US$10 000 already paid, and to monthly payments of R3 500 from December...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant R917 400 within 90 days of the date of judgment.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant R3 500 per month from December 2008 until payment of the capital sum.