Earlier this month, the Johannesburg High Court ruled on an opposed Rule 43(6) application brought by the applicant to reduce his maintenance obligations in an ongoing divorce matter. The respondent counter-claimed, seeking an increase in maintenance and the payment of legal costs. While such applications are frequent, one aspect of the case stands out: the parties have been embroiled in bitter divorce proceedings for 12 years. Although protracted litigation has predictably depleted their finances, the biggest victim of the divorce is undoubtedly the parties’ minor daughter. The case provides a timely reminder that divorces are best settled as expeditiously as possible.
In L.S v J.S, the parties married in early 2004, concluding an antenuptial contract with the incorporation of the accrual system, and welcomed a daughter in 2007. In 2012, they instituted divorce proceedings and have been engaged in acrimonious litigation ever since. For perspective, the parties’ minor daughter was just five-years-old when the divorce summons was issued. She turned 17 earlier this year.
During this protracted legal battle, the applicant has sought to vary maintenance orders, requested the disposal of various properties – including the marital home – to settle outstanding debts, and successfully contested an order requiring him to pay R3 million toward the respondent’s legal fees. The respondent, on the other hand, refused to confirm her new employment to the applicant for months – a fact which is material to the variation of a maintenance order – and has attempted to inaccurately portray the respondent as ‘a man of extensive means’. In a similar vein, the applicant duplicitously misrepresented the status of the sale of an immovable property, which had, in fact, fallen through.
The extent of the parties’ deeply litigious approach is evident in the details of the current application. Critical of the ‘excessive splay of papers [and] files’ submitted by both parties, the court noted that Rule 43 applications are designed to offer temporary relief to the most economically vulnerable spouse and minor children, pending the finalisation of divorce proceedings. Importantly, Rule 43 applications are intended to provide expedient and inexpensive relief – not to resolve new or ongoing issues between litigants. To that end, the court remarked that various ‘orders in place have long outlived the lifespan of the marriage’, which is both ‘utterly undesirable’ and incongruent with the objectives of Rule 43.
Unsurprisingly, the prolonged and hostile nature of the divorce has had a deeply negative impact on the parties’ minor daughter. As emphasised by the court, ‘[s]he has spent almost her entire childhood within the stress, tension and animosity of high conflict divorce proceedings.’ The full extent of the psychological and emotional toll of her parents’ court battle on the minor, who currently spends very little time with her father, is recorded in a 2021 report by the Family Advocate.
Without assuming the content of the report, children caught in the middle of acrimonious and protracted divorces may experience a range of negative emotions, including anger, sadness, anxiety, and confusion. They may suffer from feelings of abandonment or guilt, and struggle with trust and attachment issues. Notably, children may experience behavioural changes, such as withdrawal or declining academic performance, and loss of stability.
Given the parties’ reluctance to settle, their 12-year legal battle has – expectedly – proven costly. Allegedly, their combined legal costs exceed R10 million, with the respondent having incurred legal fees to the tune of nearly R8.1 million. Alarmingly, she lists the value of her assets at just over R310 000.00. In light of this information, the court questioned how the respondent has managed to continue litigating, noting that she is ‘strongly and aggressively represented’. Critical of the ‘extremely unfortunate’ way in which the divorce has unfolded, the court anticipated that the respondent’s legal representatives will continue to aggressively litigate ‘irrespective of a cost contribution’. Ultimately, however, there may not be anything ‘left to fight over’. It is thus in the best interests of the parties – and the minor child – for the spouses and their legal representatives to finalise the divorce.
At STBB, our family law specialists are committed to manoeuvring the complexities and sensitivities of all family law matters, including divorce. To that end, it is vital to utilise a skilled and experienced attorney who advocates for the smooth and efficient resolution of divorce matters. While it is not always possible to divorce without litigating, particularly when minor children are involved, it is usually the preferred option. Moreover, finalising a divorce is essential for facilitating closure, reducing emotional and psychological distress, avoiding further conflict, and starting afresh.
Mindful of these considerations, STBB introduced a revolutionary concept several years ago: online divorce. Pioneered by Director and family law attorney, Shirne Grobler, the online divorce portal is a convenient and cost-effective solution to getting divorced as efficiently and painlessly as possible. The service permits couples to finalise their divorce digitally, as far as is possible, at a fixed and all-inclusive amount – with the crucial benefit of professional oversight and experience.
If you and your spouse are considering an uncontested divorce, and reside in the Western Cape or Gauteng, let us help you finalise your divorce as expediently as possible.
Visit our online portal to initiate the process or contact our family law experts at familylaw@stbb.co.za for further information.
