Warner v Hoesslin (2023/120036) [2024] ZAGPJHC 642 (12 July 2024)

Warner v Hoesslin (2023/120036) [2024] ZAGPJHC 642 (12 July 2024)

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting leave to appeal on costs only and no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The reference to the application as 'pre-emptive' did not establish a broader procedural principle but was relevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs. The parties had agreed to an expert investigation, and with that process pending, it was premature for the court to make a substantive determination on the central issue. The costs order was justified on the facts and did not set a precedent requiring expert evidence in similar applications. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded on the party and party scale B.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 642
Parties
Applicant: Gareth Peachey Warner; Respondent: Marissa von Hoesslin
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Case Number
2023/120036
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the party and party scale B.
Judges
C Todd
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Leave to Appeal, Parental Rights, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Family and Children Costs Award Leave to Appeal Parental Rights Judicial Discretion

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Peachey Warner

Applicant

Marissa von Hoesslin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the costs order made in the judgment of 17 May 2024.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify an appeal on costs only.
  3. 3 Whether the description of the application as 'pre-emptive' in the prior judgment establishes a harmful precedent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting leave to appeal on costs only and no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The reference to the application as 'pre-emptive' did not establish a broader procedural principle but was relevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs. The parties had agreed to an expert investigation, and with that process pending, it was premature for the court to make a substantive determination on the central issue. The costs order was justified on the facts and did not set a precedent requiring expert evidence in similar applications. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded on the party and party scale B.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the party and party scale B.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent on the party and party scale B.