Y D (Now M) v L B (465/09) [2010] ZASCA 106; 2010 (6) SA 338 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 501 (SCA) (17 September 2010)

Y D (Now M) v L B (465/09) [2010] ZASCA 106; 2010 (6) SA 338 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 501 (SCA) (17 September 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that scientific tests to determine paternity should not be ordered where paternity has already been established on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the respondent did not genuinely dispute paternity and had acted consistently with the belief that he was the father. The court found that the rights to privacy and bodily integrity may be limited in the best interests of the child, but such limitation was not justified here, as there was no real dispute. The function of the court is to resolve civil disputes on a balance of probabilities, not to pursue scientific certainty where it is unnecessary. The appeal was upheld and the order for DNA testing...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 106
Parties
Appellant: Y D (Now M); Respondent: L B
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2010
Case Number
465/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order for DNA testing set aside.
Judges
Harms, Lewis, Ponnan, Ebrahim, K Pillay
Legal Topics
Paternity Dispute, Dna Testing, Children S Act, Balance of Probabilities
Family and Children Civil Procedure Paternity Dispute Dna Testing Children S Act Balance of Probabilities

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

Parties

Y D (Now M)

Appellant

L B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court should order scientific tests to determine paternity when paternity has already been established on a balance of probabilities.
  2. 2 Whether the rights to privacy and bodily integrity may be infringed in pursuit of scientific certainty in paternity cases.
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the child require DNA testing in the absence of genuine dispute as to paternity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that scientific tests to determine paternity should not be ordered where paternity has already been established on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the respondent did not genuinely dispute paternity and had acted consistently with the belief that he was the father. The court found that the rights to privacy and bodily integrity may be limited in the best interests of the child, but such limitation was not justified here, as there was no real dispute. The function of the court is to resolve civil disputes on a balance of probabilities, not to pursue scientific certainty where it is unnecessary. The appeal was upheld and the order for DNA testing...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order for DNA testing set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs including those of two counsel.
  • The order of the high court is replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs.'