U v U (29378/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 347 (26 September 2019)

U v U (29378/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 347 (26 September 2019)

The applicant failed to establish a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm or that the respondent intended to dissipate assets to defeat his contingent accrual claim. The respondent's stated intention to use the proceeds for living expenses and support of the children was bona fide and not actuated by fraudulent intent. The drastic nature of the anti-dissipation order sought would unjustifiably limit the respondent's right to use her own funds. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, and there was no evidence of conduct by the respondent's attorney warranting a punitive costs order. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 347
Parties
Applicant: A[...] U[...]; Respondent: C[...] J[...] U[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
29378/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Anti Dissipation Order Pending Divorce Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
K E Matojane
Legal Topics
Anti Dissipation Interdict, Accrual System, Matrimonial Property Act, Forfeiture of Benefits, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Family and Children Civil Procedure Anti Dissipation Interdict Accrual System Matrimonial Property Act Forfeiture of Benefits Costs De Bonis Propriis

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

Parties

A[...] U[...]

Applicant

C[...] J[...] U[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Anti Dissipation Order Pending Divorce Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an anti-dissipation interdict to prevent the respondent from utilising the proceeds of the sale of her immovable property pending divorce proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm and that the respondent intends to defeat his contingent accrual claim by dissipating assets.
  3. 3 Whether costs de bonis propriis should be awarded against the respondent's attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm or that the respondent intended to dissipate assets to defeat his contingent accrual claim. The respondent's stated intention to use the proceeds for living expenses and support of the children was bona fide and not actuated by fraudulent intent. The drastic nature of the anti-dissipation order sought would unjustifiably limit the respondent's right to use her own funds. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, and there was no evidence of conduct by the respondent's attorney warranting a punitive costs order. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.