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
T.A.M-W v C.M.M (2025/030666) [2025] ZAWCHC 217 (23 May 2025)
The High Court held the respondent in contempt for retaining two minor children in Switzerland contrary to a consent order, and ordered their return and punitive costs.
Central Authority of Republic of South Africa and Another v C.M (2023/077002) [2025] ZAGPJHC 99 (10 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a Hague Convention return application, finding the father had consented to removal and that returning the child to Israel posed a grave risk.
K.C v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another (2024/047309) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1010 (7 October 2024)
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties. It applied the test under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which sets a high threshold for granting leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the findings regarding habitual residence and the Article 13(b) defence were properly made in the original judgment. The court concluded that there was no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Source excerpt
V.L v M.A.V and Others (B 39322/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 861 (27 August 2024)
Hague Convention child-abduction application dismissed because the child was not habitually resident in Switzerland and the applicant had acquiesced.
C.A.R v Central Authority of The Republic of South Africa and Another (737/2023) [2024] ZASCA 103; [2024] 3 All SA 653 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 351 (SCA) (21 June 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the mother failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the return of the minor child to Canada would expose him to grave physical or psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation as required by article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The evidence did not establish that the child's developmental delays or medical issues could not be adequately addressed in Canada, nor that protective measures and undertakings offered by the father would be insufficient. The court held that the best interests of the child, in t…
Source excerpt
R.H v N.M (12871/2021) [2024] ZAWCHC 77; [2024] 2 All SA 504 (WCC) (11 March 2024)
The court found that, although the respondent had at times frustrated the applicant's contact with L, her conduct was not so egregious as to override L's expressed desire to remain with his mother. Expert reports confirmed that both parents are capable of providing adequate care and that L has strong bonds with both. The respondent's proposal to allow L to spend a year in Australia with the applicant at age 13 was considered fair and in L's best interests. The court held that the paramount consideration is L's emotional well-being and stability, and that only the most compelling factors shoul…
Source excerpt
MB v LC and Another (21586/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 61; 2024 (6) SA 546 (WCC) (29 February 2024)
Hague Convention application for the return of two children to Australia was dismissed after the court found consent, alternatively acquiescence, to their stay in South Africa.
J.B v R.E (9202 / 2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 3 (17 January 2023)
The High Court granted a relocation order allowing the applicant to move with the minor child to Lyon, France, and set detailed care and contact arrangements.
S[....] v S[....] (D7960/2019) [2022] ZAKZDHC 7 (18 February 2022)
The High Court dismissed a father’s bid to enforce a mirror order returning a child to the UK, finding the child’s best interests required him to remain with his mother in South Africa.
L v Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Others (1143/2020) [2021] ZASCA 107 (3 August 2021)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a Hague Convention child-abduction case because the applicant failed to show a grave-risk defence under Article 13(b).
Explore more
