V v V and Others (2003/20813, 2007/9126) [2009] ZAGPJHC 114 (29 April 2009)

V v V and Others (2003/20813, 2007/9126) [2009] ZAGPJHC 114 (29 April 2009)

The court finds that Mr V should be granted leave to intervene in the consolidated proceedings. Although his support for Mrs V does not establish a direct and substantial interest, the serious allegations made against him by Mr S are directly in issue and must be decided as part of the judgment on the merits. The outcome of the proceedings may require orders involving Mr V, and his participation is necessary to address the allegations and to ensure that the best interests of the minor children are served. Requiring Mr V to file separate affidavits would cause unnecessary delay and costs; a single affidavit addressing his intended evidence and responses to the allegations is sufficient.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPJHC 114
Parties
Applicant: Mr V; Respondent: Mrs V; Respondent: Mr S; Respondent: B; Respondent: M; Respondent: Centre for Child Law
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Case Number
2003/20813, 2007/9126
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Intervene in Consolidated Relocation and Access Proceedings
Outcome
Mr V is granted leave to intervene as a party in both the relocation and access applications.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Custody and Access, Relocation of Minor Children, Intervention in Proceedings, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Custody and Access Relocation of Minor Children Intervention in Proceedings Best Interests of Child

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr V

Applicant

Mrs V

Respondent

Mr S

Respondent

B

Respondent

M

Respondent

Centre for Child Law

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Intervene in Consolidated Relocation and Access Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr V should be granted leave to intervene in the consolidated relocation and access applications.
  2. 2 Whether Mr V has a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the allegations against Mr V require his participation as a party rather than merely as a witness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that Mr V should be granted leave to intervene in the consolidated proceedings. Although his support for Mrs V does not establish a direct and substantial interest, the serious allegations made against him by Mr S are directly in issue and must be decided as part of the judgment on the merits. The outcome of the proceedings may require orders involving Mr V, and his participation is necessary to address the allegations and to ensure that the best interests of the minor children are served. Requiring Mr V to file separate affidavits would cause unnecessary delay and costs; a single affidavit addressing his intended evidence and responses to the allegations is sufficient.

Court Disposition

Mr V is granted leave to intervene as a party in both the relocation and access applications.

Orders

  • Mr V is joined as the second applicant in the relocation application (case number 2003/20813) and as the second respondent in the access application (case number 2007/9126).
  • Mr V must file an affidavit within ten days summarising his intended evidence and responding to allegations relevant to the issues referred for oral evidence.