Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
J.HG v G.W.H and Another (7147/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 133 (7 May 2025)
Costs judgment after dismissal of an urgent application for temporary safe care of a minor child over the festive period.
W.B v R.B and Another (D8141/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 96; 2024 (4) SA 316 (KZD) (18 December 2023)
High Court ordered limited medical disclosure in a child residence dispute, balancing privacy and the best interests of the children.
D v D (14582/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1034 (19 December 2022)
The High Court allowed the father to relocate the parties’ 13-year-old child to Croatia, holding that the move served the child’s best interests and setting detailed contact arrangements.
D.J.B (born M) v M.B (13973/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 27 (18 February 2021)
On an urgent relocation application, the court allowed two children to move to Centurion, approved Midstream College, amended contact arrangements, and made no costs order.
T.P.M v C.M (224/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 22 (11 February 2021)
The court found that both parents are generally good and capable, but the applicant had provided consistent care for the minor child, especially during the respondent's absence. Allegations against the applicant were unsubstantiated, and the child had formed stable relationships in her current environment. The respondent's opposition to regular contact was not supported by evidence and did not serve the child's best interests. The court held that the applicant is better placed to provide for the child's educational and emotional wellbeing, and that both parents should retain parental responsi…
Source excerpt
J J v R V (5832/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 226 (19 October 2020)
High Court parenting dispute ordering shared parental rights, primary residence with the respondent, structured contact for the applicant, and each party to pay own costs.
T.H v L.A.H (10554/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 109 (6 February 2020)
The High Court held that a Rule 43 application was premature because no divorce summons had been issued. The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to pay own costs.
M v P (1917/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 19 (1 February 2019)
The court held that the respondent, as the primary caregiver, is entitled to decide where to live with the minor child, provided the decision is bona fide and reasonable, and not intended to frustrate the applicant's parental rights. The relocation to the Western Cape was found to be rational, motivated by the respondent's marriage and her husband's business opportunity, and not a deliberate attempt to curtail the applicant's access. The court accepted the expert report that the child's best interests would be served by remaining with the respondent, with access to the applicant every second…
Source excerpt
G.C (Nee O) v D.S.C and Another (84382/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 946 (11 December 2018)
High Court review of a maintenance-court refusal to grant absolution from the instance. The court found no basis for variation and substituted an order granting absolution with costs.
A.J.H v A.H (23610/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 495 (29 June 2018)
The High Court dismissed a bid to vary a parenting plan and ordered the applicant to pay costs, finding no basis to change the children’s residence from the respondent.
Explore more
