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
X.S (7265/2024), In Re [2024] ZALMPPHC 80 (18 July 2024)
The High Court dispensed with a father’s consent for a minor’s educational trip to the United States, finding the travel in the child’s best interests.
K.S.C v D.D.M and Another (2023/02208) [2023] ZAGPJHC 537 (21 May 2023)
The court found that the applicant had made out a case for relief. The father's refusal to sign the consent form was not based on substantive objection to the trip but rather a reluctance to participate in the process. The WhatsApp messages indicated no genuine opposition to the travel. The court considered the best interests of the child and the absence of any valid reason for withholding consent. Accordingly, the court granted the order permitting the applicant to travel.
Source excerpt
AM v NM (23365/2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 223 (4 July 2019)
The court held the applicant was justified in bringing an urgent application for a travel consent affidavit and ordered the respondent to pay costs.
M.L v S.J.D (18504/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 79 (24 June 2016)
The High Court awarded costs on an attorney-and-client scale after finding the respondent obstructive about a child’s passport renewal and travel consent.
A.B v D.B (4001/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 56 (26 October 2015)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to compel a father to sign travel documents for children, finding the urgency self-serving and the concerns about contact well founded.
Campher v Cushing (CA 113/2009) [2009] ZAECGHC 35 (9 June 2009)
The court found that the trial judge misdirected herself by treating the matter as adversarial and applying an onus to the appellant, rather than conducting a judicial investigation into the child’s best interests. The evidence established that the minor child has a close, dependent relationship with his mother, and that separation would cause significant emotional harm, amounting to emotional abuse and abandonment. The concerns about the appellant’s ability to care for the child during treatment were not substantiated by the medical evidence, and arrangements were in place to provide support…
Source excerpt
Explore more
