W and others v W (2010/10620) [2013] ZAGPJHC 103 (18 March 2013)

W and others v W (2010/10620) [2013] ZAGPJHC 103 (18 March 2013)

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the Applicants for leave to appeal had merit. The First Applicant's unilateral changes to maintenance payments, reliance on unnamed legal advice, and deductions for repairs were unjustified. The obligation to pay transfer duty as part of the costs for registering the usufruct was clear from the agreement made an order of court. The Second to Sixth Applicants were properly found in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. The First Applicant remained indebted to the Respondent for the revised amount of repatriated funds, and the deductions for computer and plumbing repairs were not permissible. There was no reasonable...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 103
Parties
Applicant: W: T; Applicant: W: T N O; Applicant: W: N N O; Applicant: W: C N O; Applicant: D: J; Applicant: P: S N O; Respondent: W: HB (born G)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2013
Case Number
2010/10620
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the Applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
L M Hodes
Legal Topics
Maintenance Obligations, Contempt of Court, Usufruct Registration, Costs Award, Repatriated Funds, Deductions From Maintenance
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Obligations Contempt of Court Usufruct Registration Costs Award Repatriated Funds Deductions From Maintenance

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W: T

Applicant

W: T N O

Applicant

W: N N O

Applicant

W: C N O

Applicant

D: J

Applicant

P: S N O

Applicant

W: HB (born G)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding maintenance for G.
  2. 2 Whether the First Applicant is liable for transfer duty in respect of the registration of the usufruct.
  3. 3 Whether the Second to Sixth Applicants were correctly found to be in contempt of a court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the Applicants for leave to appeal had merit. The First Applicant's unilateral changes to maintenance payments, reliance on unnamed legal advice, and deductions for repairs were unjustified. The obligation to pay transfer duty as part of the costs for registering the usufruct was clear from the agreement made an order of court. The Second to Sixth Applicants were properly found in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. The First Applicant remained indebted to the Respondent for the revised amount of repatriated funds, and the deductions for computer and plumbing repairs were not permissible. There was no reasonable...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the Applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • Applicants are to pay the costs of this application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved from such payment.