Schneder NO and Others v Aspeling and Another (8675/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 160 (28 February 2011)

Schneder NO and Others v Aspeling and Another (8675/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 160 (28 February 2011)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was no merit in any of the grounds advanced. The delay of nine months in prosecuting the application, without explanation or condonation, was itself a sufficient ground for dismissal, especially given the urgency of matters involving children. The substantive grounds for appeal were found to be either previously agreed upon by the parties or ancillary to the central issue, which was the best interests of the children. The court found that the orders made were based on evidence, a detailed settlement offer, and were crafted to be precise and in the children's best interests. The challenge to the expert's role was...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 160
Parties
Applicant: Craig Theo Schneider N.O.; Applicant: Craig Theo Schneider; Applicant: Isabel Shapiro N.O.; Applicant: Isabel Shapiro; Respondent: Allison Aspeling; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2011
Case Number
8675/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 8 January 2010.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Best Interests of Child, Access and Contact Rights, Expert Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Family and Children Civil Procedure Best Interests of Child Access and Contact Rights Expert Evidence Leave to Appeal Costs Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Theo Schneider N.O.

Applicant

Craig Theo Schneider

Applicant

Isabel Shapiro N.O.

Applicant

Isabel Shapiro

Applicant

Allison Aspeling

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 8 January 2010.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted regarding the court's previous order concerning the best interests of two minor children.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal justifies dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the orders regarding access, supervision, and contact with the children were sufficiently clear and in their best interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was no merit in any of the grounds advanced. The delay of nine months in prosecuting the application, without explanation or condonation, was itself a sufficient ground for dismissal, especially given the urgency of matters involving children. The substantive grounds for appeal were found to be either previously agreed upon by the parties or ancillary to the central issue, which was the best interests of the children. The court found that the orders made were based on evidence, a detailed settlement offer, and were crafted to be precise and in the children's best interests. The challenge to the expert's role was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made for the application for leave to appeal.