T v T (16/2920) [2017] ZAGPPHC 301 (28 June 2017)

T v T (16/2920) [2017] ZAGPPHC 301 (28 June 2017)

The court found that the particulars of claim were not vague or embarrassing. Clause 7 of the settlement agreement did not refer to pension interests except for the retirement annuity, and the agreement established joint ownership of the listed policies and investments. The plaintiff's claim was for 50% of the value of these investments upon maturity or payout, not for an apportionment of pension interests under the Divorce Act. The calculation date for the claimed amount related to demand and mora interest, and the method of calculation was a matter for evidence. The exceptions raised by the defendant were therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 301
Parties
Plaintiff: T, C; Defendant: T, A
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Case Number
16/2920
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Divorce Settlement, Joint Ownership of Investments, Exception Procedure, Vagueness and Embarrassment
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Settlement Joint Ownership of Investments Exception Procedure Vagueness and Embarrassment

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

Parties

T, C

Plaintiff

T, A

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to 50% of the value of certain policies and investments.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim distinguishes between pension interests and pension benefits as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the calculation date for the claimed amount is sufficiently pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim were not vague or embarrassing. Clause 7 of the settlement agreement did not refer to pension interests except for the retirement annuity, and the agreement established joint ownership of the listed policies and investments. The plaintiff's claim was for 50% of the value of these investments upon maturity or payout, not for an apportionment of pension interests under the Divorce Act. The calculation date for the claimed amount related to demand and mora interest, and the method of calculation was a matter for evidence. The exceptions raised by the defendant were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.