SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2024 - 021334
1. REPORTABLE: YES
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
3. REVISED: YES
DATE: 24 February 2025
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In the matter between:
K[...] O[...] APPLICANT
and
M[...] S[...] RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Summary:
Shared residency of minor children where parents have a high conflict
relationship – inability to effectively communicate in a non -confrontational manner
an aggravating factor for court to consider .
Shared residency - Reasonable contact does not equate to shared residency.
Misconception that shared residency is required for a quality relationship by the non -
residential parent with a minor child and for such parent to remain involved in the
child’s life. Minor children not responsible for fulfilling parents’ emotional needs and
to adapt their lives to suit parental needs.
Standard to which expert reports pertaining to minor children must adhere
restated - status of a social worker’s report considered . Mere qualifications and
experience do not transform an otherwise non -compliant report into that of an expert
report. For it to be an expert report it must meet the requirements of an expert report .
HAUPT, AJ
INTRODUCTION:
[1] This matter involves a dispute concerning the residency of the minor child,
OR, born on 13 March 2017 from the relationship between the applicant and
the respondent.
[2] The matter initially came before me in the Family Court in September 2024,
where it was postponed for purposes of allowing the applicant to file a further
affidavit and for the Office of the Family Advocate (“Family Advocate”) to
investigate and report on the best interest of OR.
[3] An order was granted on 13 January 2025 prior to the commencement of the
2025 school year. What follows below are my judgment and reasons for the
order.
[4] The matter has a long history of high conflict between the parties. The issue
of whether shared residency will be in the best interest of the minor child in
circumstances where there is high interparental conflict takes center stage in
the dispute.
[5] Of further relevance is the fact that the court was presented with two
contradictory reports on the issue of shared residency: one from a social
worker, M rs Irma Schutte, who recommended shared residency, and one
from the Family Advocate wherein the view was expressed that shared
residency in this instance would not be in the best interest of the minor child,
OR, and will add “fuel to the fire”.
[6] Expert reports concerning the interests of minor children , irrespective o f
whether they are prep ared by a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist
must meet the well -established r equirements for expert opinions. This
includes that such opinion should be based on logical reasoning to be of
assistance to the court.
[7] The fact that establishing the best interests of minor children may involve a
flexible approach and is case specific does not mean that the bar is set lower
when considering the process followed and reasoning and recommendation
of reports filed by suitably qualified professionals in disputes regarding the
care, residency and contact of minors. To the contrary, i t has been remarked
that:
“… Courts exercising family jurisdiction do not occupy a desert island
in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something
different. …” 1
[8] Given the above , the opposite views expressed by the social worker and the
Family Advocate necessitate further consideration of when a report can be
regarded as an “expert” report, and what weight should be attached to
reports such as the one filed by M rs Schutte, where the recommendations
made were unsupported by the factual findings.
BACKGROUND:
[9] The facts below are common cause, alternatively not meaningfully
challenged .
[10] The parties met during September 2014 and became romantically involved
in July 2015. In 2016 they started to cohabitate, and OR was born on 13
1 Binns -Ward J in Thomas Chr istopher van Zyl N.O. v Bernice Kaye N.O.; Egor Vukic N.O. and
Seven Other Respondents 2014 (4) SA 452 (WCC) at para 24 and footnote 16 of the judgment and
in reference to the judgment by the English Court in Prest v Prest and Ors [2013] UK SC 34, [2013]
4 All ER 673; [2013] BCC 57
March 2017. Their relationship was volatile from the outset , pre - and post
OR’s birth, marked by arguments and high conflict.
[11] During August 2018 the relationship broke down and the parties separated.
OR was 1 year and 5 months old when her parents separated. Since the
separation OR has been in the primary care and residence of the respondent
and the tug of war regar ding contact ensued.
[12] After their separation in 2018 the parties made several unsuccessful
attempts to resolve the issue of the extent of the applicant’s contact with OR.
This culminated in an application launched by the applicant in this court
under case number 46957/2019 to extend his contact with OR. The
respondent opposed the application and filed a counter application wherein
she inter alia sought an order for maintenance.
[13] The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement which was made an
order of court by Tuchten J on 25 September 2019 (“the 2019 order”). OR
was 2½ years old when the 2019 order was made , which provided for the
following :
a. Confirming the applicant as the biological father of OR and that he
was a co -holder for full parental rights and responsibilities as
provided for in Section 21 (read with Section 18 ) of the Children's
Act.2
b. OR was to continue primarily residing with the respondent . The
applicant’s contact with OR include d every Wednesday afternoon
from school until 17:00, alternative weekends from the Friday after
school until 16:00 on Sunday when the respondent was to collect OR
from her father's home and contact on alternative public holidays,
father's day, the child's birthday , on t he applicant’s birthday as well
as four days or half of the school holiday, whichever was the
2 38 of 2005 – Section 21 provides for the parental responsibilities and rights of unmarried fathers
shortest. This arrangement was to be in place until OR reaches the
age of 4 years.
c. From the time that OR reaches the age of 4 and i n the event of the
parties being unable to reach an agreement regarding an exten sion
of contact, the parties reserved the right to approach the court on the
same papers as supplemented and after the Office of the Family
Advocate has provided their final report.
d. The applicant was to contribute to OR’s monthly maintenance,
including the payment of a cash amount of R6,000.00 per month, her
crèche and schooling fees, and 50% of extramural sporting activities
(provided that he has consented thereto in writing), books,
stationery, clothing and equipment for extramurals. The applicant
was also to retain OR on his comprehensive medical aid at his costs
until she is self -supporting and pay for 50% of all reasonable and
necessary medical costs not covered by his medical aid .
e. The applicant was to obtain life cover of at least R2 million for the
benefit of OR, to s afeguard his maintenance obligation.
f. OR’s surname was to be amended to a double -barrel surname to
reflect the surname of both her parents. The parties agreed to act in
accordance with the requirements provided by the Department of
Home Affairs to effect the surname amendment.
g. Each party was to pay his or her own costs.
[14] After the granting of the 2019 order the parties continued with their lives. The
respondent e ntered into a relationship with Mr Campher and later cohabited
with him. From this relationship a minor daughter, A L was born on 9 July
2021. When the matter came before me the applicant raised the concern
that this relationship has ended. AL is presently 3 years and 8 months old.
[15] The applicant met his present wife at the beginning of 2021, and they
married a few months later in Augus t of that year.
[16] Shortly after his marriage, the applicant again approached the respondent to
have his contact with OR extended. The parties could not agree on the
extent of such increased contact.
[17] They attempted to mediate the dispute for approximately 6 months and in
2022 the parties agreed to a further overnight contact on a Sunday and a 7 -
day visit during the April holidays. As the parties were not able to reach
agreement on further extension of the applicant’s contact , the mediator
propos ed that a social worker be appointed to assess OR’s best interest and
the extension of contact. The mediator contacted the social worker, Mrs Irma
Schutte, and proposed that she assist with the investigation.
[18] Prior to the parties agreeing to a forensic investigation the applicant’s
attorney on 23 September 2022 addressed correspondence to the
respondent 's attorney inviting her to agree to a shared residenc y
arrangement , which resulted in a further exchange of correspondence
between the parties’ respective attorneys. T he respondent did not agree with
proposals made by the applicant to extend his contac t to provide for shared
residency as she was of the view that it would be disruptive for OR and not
in her interests.
[19] The above culminated in a letter from the applicant’s attorney on 20 Janu ary
2023 wherein the applicant inter alia threatened a further application to court
to extend his contact rights and imprisonment of the respondent for her
allegedly being in contempt of the 2019 order that was granted by Tuchten J.
[20] In March 2023, the parties agreed to appoint Mrs Schutte .
[21] The parties had different views on the mandate of the social worker.
According to the respondent, Mrs Schutte was to only investigate the best
interests of OR, in respect of the extension of contact without varying
residency . According to the applicant Mrs Schutte was also to investigate
shared residency.
[22] Mrs Schutte finalised her report on 15 October 2023 . In her report she
recommends extending the applicant ’s contact in order to phase in a shared
residency regime as from January 2025. At the time when the report was
made available to the parties , OR was 6½ of years of age and would be
attending Grade 1 as from 2024.
[23] During November 2023 numerous letters were exchanged between the
respective attorneys wherein the applicant 's attorneys insisted that the
respondent abide s by the recommendations of M rs Schutte. Although the
respondent was prepared to consider the recommendation to extend contact
to include a midweek sleepover from a Thursday afternoon after school and
that the applicant takes OR back to school the following day, as well as
alternative weekends from Thursday after school until the Monday morning
when OR was to be returned to school, the respondent qualified the
arrangement that it was only for a trial period to see how OR would adjust.
[24] The applicant did not agree with the proposal. The applicant insisted that the
recommendations of Mrs Schutte be implemented including the appointment
of a psychologist as a mediator and to assist with the compilation of the
parenting plan. The respondent did not respond to this proposal.
[25] From the correspondence attached to the affidavits it is clear to me that the
respondent has been consistent throughout about her concerns with the
recommendation made by Mrs Schutte about the shared residency, and that
these recommendations were not supported by facts. The applicant, on the
other hand, steadfastly believed that Mrs Schutte’s report would hold up in
court and persisted with his view that the shared residency arrangement as
recommended by Mrs Schutte should be implemented.
[26] On 16 January 2024 the following emails were exchanged:
a. From the respondent regarding her concerns in respect of the report:
“I have noted your request with regards to O _'s time spent between
us.
May I take a moment and put Irma’s recommendations into
perspective as I see it. We requested her to advise us on O_'s best
interests as far as extended contact with you are concerned, which
would at the same time imply less time with me and very importantly,
less time with A_.
Irma only address the contact arrangements as it was at the time,
with no guidance at all as to the emotional effect that these changes
will have on O_ and even more so not to the extent of joint
residency, or the big impact of such a decision on both O_ and A_
considering their extremely close bond. She leaps to her
recommendations without any explanation or clarity on how these
suggested changes will affect O_.
For this reason, taking O_ into consideration, I believe that it would
be the least disruptive for her emotionally, at this point in time, for us
to continue with the arrangements as they are now.
The change from Thursday to Mondays on your weekends have just
only been implemented (one weekend of last year) and I think we
can both agree that it is premature to now introduce further changes
to her living arrangements.
With the new baby coming and with O_ starting Grade 1 this year
she is already going to experience a lot of changes so I don't believe
now would be the time to add more.
For the weeks of my weekends the Wednesday will remain your
night. I think this gives us both the opportunity to be part of school
activities, etc on alternative Wednesdays and Thursdays. ” (own
emphasis)
b. The applicant then responded:
“I note your input, but in this respect Irma's expertise and
experience in the field lend significant credibility and weight to
their opinions. I am 100% confident that any court would reach
the same conclusion. ”
c. The respondent subsequent repl ied:
“You are welcome to proceed as you feel necessary.
You have my input in this regard.
We cannot decide for the courts. ”
APPLICANT’S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT:
[27] The application served on 26 February 2024 is voluminous, consisting of 192
pages, including annexure s of correspondence dating as far back as 2018.
The application was issued under a different case number than the 2019
application.
[28] In the notice of motion, the applicant seeks relief which duplicates most of
the relief contained in the 2019 order.3 No explanation is provided in the
founding affidavit why a duplication of relief already granted was in the
interest of OR, why the matter was launched under a different case number
and why there was not compliance with the 2019 order in respect of the
parties first obtaining a report from the Family Advocate before approaching
the court to revisit the applicant’s c ontact. The notice of motion further seeks
3 This included that the parties shall retain full parental rights and responsibilities pertaining to the
minor child including guardianship, that the part ies should take not ice of Section 31(1)(2) of the
Children's Act , and the principle of the right of first refusal.
to:
a. Implement the recommendation of M rs Schutte, including that M rs
Linda Botha be appointed as the mediator to assist with the
compiling of the parenting plan and education on how decision s
must be made and manage conflict between the parties as part of
her mediation.
b. That the applicant is entitled to approach the Department of Home
Affairs to effect the change of OR’s surname and that the written
consent or attendance of the respondent is not further required.
c. Cost in the event of opposition.
[29] I pause to mention that at the time the matte r initially came before me in
September 2024 OR was 7½ years of age and in Grade 1 , and the changing
of her surname had still not occurred. However, this was subsequently
resolved and therefore does not warrant further discussion .
[30] In summary, the motivation in the founding affidavit for the relief sought is:
a. If the court does not intervene , the applicant’s relationship and
contact with his daughter will be at the whim of the respondent .
b. The mediation process failed, and his contact has only slightly been
extended since approximately December 2021.
c. The respondent dictates contact, she frustrates every effort to
increase his contact, and he is at her mercy in respect of contact
during holidays.
d. OR expressed a desire to spend more time with him. The applicant
is of the view that OR is a mature child and that her views must be
considered.
e. The historical issues between the parties are again repeated despite
it being placed before the court when the 2019 order was granted by
agreement.
f. The recommendation of Mrs Schutte serves the interest of OR.
g. Other than indicating that his wife is pregnant with their first child,
and it is his wish that OR and her new sibling must be afforded the
opportunity to bond with each othe r no further factual basis is
provided why the relief sought serves OR’s interests, or why the
status quo regarding OR’s primary residence since birth no longer
serves OR’s best interest and requires variation.
[31] The founding affidavit also does not explain why the applicant decreased the
cash component of the maintenance in the period when the parties were in a
deadlock regarding the applicant’s insistence on shared residency. The
applicant merely states that when the court considered his application in
2019, he already paid a monthly contribution towards OR of R11,080.00
excluding his 50% of the medical costs not covered by the medical aid,
which according to him was “ more than reasonable for a two year old .” As
the parties could not agree to maintenance due to the respondent’ s alleged
overinflated demands, he requested that the maintenance portion be
removed from their parenting plan and be separ ately referred to the
Maintenance Court. According to the applicant the respondent r efused to
agree to th e propos ed parenting plan unless it also made provision for OR’s
maintenance.
[32] What is evident from the founding affidavit as well as Mrs Schutte’s report , is
that the applicant is very critical of the respondent not only as a parent but
also on a personal level. His affidavit is replete with emotive words such as
“obstructive ”, “dictatorial ”, “unreasonable ” when he refers to the respondent
and that she responds “ sarcastically ” to proposals. His perception is that
since they have separated the respondent has done everything in her power
to deny or limit his contact with his daughter.
[33] The applicant’s perception is however not reconcilable with the factual
position that indicates a continuous discussion and re -evaluation of his
contact. The respondent’s emails placed before me also does not reflect a
dictatorial or unreasonable attitude on the part of the respondent. To the
contrary, I was left with the impression that it is the applicant that is the more
controlling and prescriptive parent who regards his parenting style as
preferable to that of the respondent.
[34] Although the applicant confirms that the parties have in the interim
implemented the extended weekend sleepover and a sleepover during the
week whe n he doesn't exercise weekend contact, he persists that Mrs
Schutte’s recommendation of shared residency from 2025 is in the best
interest of OR and should be implemented .
[35] The applicant filed a 41 page replying affidavit (including annexure s) on 12
June 2024 . His affidavit again is replete with various refer ences to how
incompatible he and the respondent are. According to him t hey have
different approaches to parenting and disciplin e, and t he respondent allows
too much screen time and is not as strict regarding discipline as he is in his
home.
[36] In the replying affidavit the applicant explains that the reason for the late
filing was that he was awaiting M rs Schutte’s response to the “criticism ” of
her report by the respondent . His attorney forwarded a letter to M rs Schutte
setting out the paragraphs in the answering affidavit in which the
respondent’s disagree s with the report and recommendation. Mrs Schutte
was requested to provide her feedback so that it can be placed before the
court.
[37] Despite initially indicating on 18 April 202 4 that she was not willing to
respond to the request with out both parties’ permission , Mrs Schutte
nonetheless proceeded to provide a “ Response to the opposing affidavit of
the respondent ” dated 27 May 2024 ( “May 2024 Response ”) without the
respondent having given the requested permission. I deal more fully with Mrs
Schutte’s May 2024 Response later in my judgment.
[38] In the replying affidavit the applicant further elaborates on why, in his view,
Mrs Schutte’s report is well balanced and substantiated. He informs the court
that his d aughter L was born on 4 April 2024 and if t he shared residency
recommendation is not implemented OR won't be able to develop a bond
with L. The applicant does not provide any further factual context in support
of this concern. The applicant primarily relies on Mrs Schutte‘s May 2024
Response , wherein she further defends her position and her
recommendation in support of the relief that he seeks. The applicant
interprets the May 2024 Response to imply that shared residency is the only
way that OR will have an opportunity to develop a bond with her new sibling ,
baby L.
[39] The applicant further contacted Mr Campher’s attorneys and obtained
information in what can only be seen as an attempt to bolster his case, which
he referred to in a supplementary affidavit filed on his behalf on 10
September 2024 and deposed to by his attorney of record. The information
obtained included a letter that Mr Cam pher’s attorney sent to the respondent
in a personal dispute unrelated to the applicant.
[40] In this supplementary affidavit the respondent is accused of withholding
information pertaining to the termination of her relationship with Mr Campher
from the court. It is further presented by the applicant as a given that Mr
Campher will be successful in obtaining shared residency of AL, and that
such an arrangement will inevitably cause a separation of the siblings. It was
then argued before me on behalf of the applicant that, based on the
assumption that Mr Campher will obtain shared residency of AL, th e
respondent’s reason for not wanting to separate the siblings fall by the
wayside.
THE RESPONDENT’S GROUNDS FOR OPPOSING THE RELIEF SOUGHT:
[41] The respondent 's concerns regarding the extension of the applicant 's contact
to result in shared residency have consistently bee n:
a. The requests for extended contact and shared residency are
motivated by the interests of the applicant and not the interest of OR.
b. OR and her stepsister AL have an extremely close bond, and the
extended contact will negatively impact on both children.
c. The disruptive effect of shared residency.
[42] In her answering affidavit, the respondent deals extensively with her
concerns regarding the disruptive effect that the recommendation of Mrs
Schutte would have on OR. Her concerns are summarised as follows:
a. She refers in detail to the extremely close bond between OR and AL
and the disruptive effect shared residency will have on both children.
b. She does not dispute the importance of contact between OR and her
father. She acknowledges that OR and the respondent share a close
bond. However, she disputes that shared residency will serve the
best interests of OR.
c. The recommendations of Mrs Schutte lack sound reasoning, and
does not consider the detrimental effect of a separation between OR
and AL.
d. Regarding Ms Schutte’s mandate, the focus of the investigation
shifted from investigating the extension of contact to shared
residency. The original mandate of Mrs Schutte was only for an
investigation as far as it relates to the extension of contact between
OR and her father.
e. An explanation is provided for the court to understand the reason for
the delay in having OR’s surname amended to give effect to the
2019 order, and why the process pertaining to the agreement on a
parenting plan and the mediation was unsuccessful.
f. The variation of residency is motivated by the applicant’s needs and
interests not by OR’s best interests. She has never disputed that
contact with the applicant is in OR's best interest. However, t he
applicant will not be satisfied until OR is in his care. They are not
capable of communicating effectively and the high conflict negatively
impacts on OR.
g. Mrs Schutte finds in her report that there is no evidence to indicate
that OR should not remain in the care of the respondent and have
reasonable contact with her father, and that OR expressed that she
wanted the present situation to be maintained . Despite her findings
Mrs Schutte persists with the recommendation that although the
present arrangement does serve OR’s best interest , OR will benefit
from more time with her father and his family.
h. Mrs Schutte’s report provides no reasoning or basis regarding the
impact of the separation between OR and AL if the shared residency
is implemented, including the emotional impact thereof on OR and
AL. In addition Mrs Schutte fails to indicate any benefit to OR to
substantiate the material change in and disruption of OR’s living
arrangements or any authority and evidence as to the success of
shared residency and in circumstances where siblings will be
separated as a result thereof.
i. She accepts the recommendation of Mrs Schutte that for the
remaining period of 202 4, OR will exercise contact with the applicant
every alternative weekend from Thursday after school until the
Monday morning when the applicant is to return OR to school. At
present, the applicant has been removing OR on Wednesdays and
returning her to school on Thursday mornings preceding her
weekend with OR. She has after due consideration of all relevant
factors consented to the extended contact that the applicant
presently enjoys.
j. In respect of Mrs Schutte's recommendation to appoint a mediator
the respondent is of the view that it may be superfluous until such
time as her and the applicant's views on shared residency are
reconciled.
k. She denies that it was necessary for the applicant to bring an
application resulting in the 2019 order to obtain further contact with
OR. At that stage the only dispute, according to the respondent, was
the extent of the holiday contact arrangements. The respondent
confirms that she launched a counter application in respect of
maintenance as the applicant had failed to address this aspect in his
application. However, t he applicant launched a maintenance court
application to reduce the cash component towards OR’s
maintenance from R6,000.00 to R3,000.00 per month.
l. Although Mrs Schutte found that OR verbalised her close
relationship with AL this fact is ignored and consequently the
respondent is of the view that Mrs Schutte's findings are
contradictory to the recommendation made .
m. She acknowledges that the applicant is a good father. However, the
applicant does not allege in his application that she is not a good
mother. Nor does Mrs Schutte make such a finding.
[43] In her affidavit filed on 11 September 2024 in answer to the applicant’s
supplementary affidavit, the respondent also expresses the view the
applicant has a personal vendetta against her, and he has now resorted to
Mr Campher to assist him in this regard. The respondent denies that she
withheld information from the court and remains adamant that she would
oppose any shared residency in respect of AL for the same reason as her
opposition to shared residency for OR. She further confirm s that at the time
there was no pending litigation between her and Mr Campher, especially in
respect of shared residency. According to her it is disingenuous of the
applicant’s attorney to state in the supplementary affidavit that the separation
of the siblings is imminent.
[44] I now turn to the report of M rs Schutte .
MRS SCHUTTE’S REPORT AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT:
[45] Mrs Schutte’s report and recommendation s need to be considered with in the
context of the well -entrenched principles relating to expert opinions and
reports. 4 The SCA in Coopers held:
“An expert’s opinion represents his reasoned conclusion based on
facts or data, which are either common cause, or established by his
own evidence, or that of some other competent witness. Except
possibly where it is not controverted, and expert’s bold statement of
his opinion is not of any real assistance. Proper evaluation of the
opinion can only be undertaken if the process of reasoning which led
to the conclusion, including the premise from which the reasoning
proceeds, are disclosed by the expert.”5
[46] The primary purpose of an expert report is to assist and provide a court with
an objective opinion. The expert's task is to assist the court with information
based on scientific facts and research that would have been unavailable,
without the expert's contribution. The expert brings an understanding of the
4 Schneider v AA 2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC)mat 211E – 212B; Michael and Another v Linksfield Park
Clinic (Pty) Ltd and Another 2011 (3) SA 1188 (SCA) para 34 – 40; Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc
and Others v National Co -operative Limited and Another [2015] 2 All SA 403 at para 99; Coopers
(South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Schädlingsbekämpfing MBH 1976 (3) SA
352 (A) at 371A -H; AM and Another v MEC for Health , Western Cape 2021 (3) SA 337 (SCA) supra
at para 21 and the reference in footnote 18 thereto ; Holtzhauzen v Roodt 1997 (4) SA 766 SA (W)
as applied by Satchwell J in S v Kleynhans 2005 (2) SACR 582 (w) at para 9 – 12 in respect of the
report provided by a social worker
5 1976 (3) SA 352 (A) at 371A - H
emotional dynamics and interpersonal interactions. The expert may provide
an understanding of the needs of the child and the influence of traumatic
events on the child's behavior . However, the opinion of the expert cannot
replace the court's decision. The role of an expert has been described as " to
assist the Court with the utmost social responsibility and justice, while
maintaining standards and ethics ”.6 If an expert is to be helpful, the expert
must be neutral. 7
[47] In my view the requirements for expert reports should be strictly complied
with to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and not exposed to a
situation where they are expected to satisfy the expectations of a parent(s)
and adapt their lives to accommodate a parent’s needs or the
recommendation of an expert.
[48] In the November 2024 report filed by the Family Advocate t he requirements
of an expert report are summarised as follows :
a. The expert must obtain a comprehensive history, background
information and collateral information from various sources. The
expert cannot rely on limited information to compile a report. A
thorough investigation and evaluation and consideration of all facts
has to be done and facts are either confirmed or rejected by
collateral sources before an expert draws a conclusion.
b. When submitting a final report, the role of the expert is to use his/her
knowledge and experience to address a legal question, as judges in
the legal fraternity in general do not have the necessary knowledge.
c. Collateral information is essential to verify information obtained
during the investigation. The expert should identify the people from
whom collateral information was obtained. This includes friends,
6 An Introduction for Forensic Psychology (2003): Roos V and Vorster C as referred to by the
Family Advocate
7 Stock v Stock 1981 (3) SA 1280 (AD) at 1296 E — F; Schneider supra at 21 2A – B; Zeffertt,
Paizes & St Q Skeen : The South African Law of Evidence (Butterworths 2003) at 306
schoolteachers , medical practitioners or family members.
d. The reliance on collateral or external information is a fundamental
aspect of a forensic report. Collateral information can be valuable to
either support, confirm or reject the information obtained from the
individuals being evaluated.
[49] It is trite that experts are not the judges of fact, and a judicial officer must not
allow the expert's opinion to take the place of his/her own findings.8
[50] I have not been referred to any authorities which indicate that a forensic
report on the best interest of a minor child irrespective of whether it is
provided by a mental health practitioner, or a social worker is to be held to a
lesser standard . I take no issue with Mrs Schutte’s qualifications and many
years of experience . However, mere qualifications and experience does not
transform an otherwise non -compliant report into that of an expert report. In
order for it to be an expert report i t still has to meet the requirements of an
expert report as enunciated by the courts over the years.
[51] I am not satisfied that the report of Mrs Schutte meets that of an expert
report for the following reasons .
[52] Save for the intake consultation Mrs Schutte had with both parties, she only
had one “forensic consultation” with each of the parents. The interactional
analysis between the applicant and OR was conducted on 31 May 2023 and
between OR and the respondent on 11 June 2023. The minor child was
assessed on two occasions, the first being 19 June and the other 21 June
2023. Mrs Schutte also did a home visit at the home each of the parents.
However, Mrs Schutte does not indicate the duration of the consultations,
interactional analysis or home visits.
[53] Nowhere in Mrs Schutte's report is there any reference to updated
8 Zeffertt & Paizes supra at 299 -301
theoretical or empirical evidence , research or literature that was applied or
considered during her investigation as would be expected of an expert when
shared residency is recommended in high conflict parental relationships.
Although Mrs Schutte states that for purposes of her investigation she
provided the parties with a biographical questionnaire and a reference list,
no further explanation of the relevance of such questionnaire(s) is provided.
It is not stated that she employed theoretical and/or psychometric sound
data gathering instruments on which the concl usions and recommendations
are based. She also does not indicate whether standarised tests were
conducted, and if so, the reliability and validity of such tests.
[54] Mrs Schutte merely refers to a Keirsey Personality Test that she conducted
with the parties to ascertain their personality profiles and that the parties' test
results indicate a certain personality type profile , without any reference to the
scientific credibility of the test methodology that she applied. The same
applies to her reference to the Parenting Questionnaire that both parents
completed to evaluate their parenting style and a Rosenberg Self -Esteem
Scale that was conducted. Consequently, I have diff iculty in reconciling the
inferences and conclusions Mrs Schutte draws from these “tests” and
methods that she employed as the theoretical and scientific credibility of the
“tests” / methods employed are not addressed in the report.
[55] The only metho dology indicated in the report utilised in the assessment of
OR is with regards to techniques from the Child's Voice Toolkit with specific
reference to the “My World Board” (Attachment B) and “Moms/Dads House”
technique . Again, the report fails to indicate what the reliability or validity of
this technique is and whether the Child’s Voice Toolkit it is indeed an
accredited test that has been subjected to peer review and is generally
recognised as a standardised test and assessment method. If it is only a
tool as suggested by the name, the n any assessment based on it will have
no evidentiary value as it will not yield a formally recognised test result.
[56] I further find difficulty reconciling Mrs Schutte’s recommendation with her
factual finding. By way of example: on page 55 of her report, she states the
following
“At this stage there is no reason or evidence to indicate that the minor child
should not remain in the care of her mother and have reasonable contact
with Mr Ox.”
[57] Mrs Schutte’s recommendation of shared residency finds no support in her
factual finding that there is no reason or evidence for the minor child not to
remain in the care of her mother and have reasonable contact with her
father. “Reasonable contact” does not equate to shared residency, and it is a
misconception that shared residency is required for a quality relationship by
the non -residential parent with a minor child. Unfortunately, the applicant,
like many other parents, legal practitioners and even professionals,
incorrectly subscribe to the notion that shared parenting involves a 50%
timeshare in raising children.9
[58] Mrs Schutte further considered it necessary to respond in the May 2024
Response to what the respondent stated about her report in her answering
affidavit. This response was in the form of an email addressed to the
applicant’s attorney despite the respondent not having given the permission
for such response initially sought by Mrs Schutte.
[59] I consider such a respon se inappropriate . The inappropriateness thereof is
further amplified by the fact that the response was addressed only to the
applicant’s attorney in a letter. The correct way for an expert to put further
information relevant to the dispute regarding minor children before a court is
by way of a further report. By having responded in the way she did and
attempting to defend her position by inter alia critici sing the respondent, Mrs
Schutte entered the fray of litigation. In my view, this defensive position
taken and the personal criticisms levelled at the respondent in a letter
addressed to the applicant’s attorney, severely taints Mrs Schutte’s
objectivity.
9 The Family Advocate referred to relevant research and literature indicating that the quality of
parenting is not defined by the quantity of time a parent spends with a child.
[60] This is supported by what Davis J stated in Schneider NO and Others v A A
and Another :
“An expert is not a hired gun who dispenses his or her expertise for
the purposes of a particular case. An expert does not assume the
role of an advocate, nor give evidence which goes beyond the logic
which is dictated by the scientific knowledge which that expert claims
to possess.”10
[61] In Mrs Schutte’s report dated 15 October 2023 she described the reason for
referral as “to conduct a forensic investigation regarding the best interest of
the minor child, O ___, specifically pertaining to her residential arrangement.”
This implies that she had to look at the present circumstances and make a
recommendation based on the present fact s. In her May 2024 Response Mrs
Schutte stated in paragraph 18 of the letter that “…I must also devise a plan
that serves the long -term best interest of the minor child.”
[62] It could never have been Mrs Schutte’s mandate to “devise a plan ” for the
long-term. Devising a plan and making a decision taking into account the
facts and recommendations by suitably qualified professionals, including the
Family Advocate, falls exclusively within the purview of this court as upper
guardian when applying the best interest of the child principle.11 At most Mrs
Schutte could make recommendations regarding the best interest of the
minor child based on the circumstances as found during her investigation.
[63] Professionals assisting the court with reports should guard against usurping
the role of the courts when making recommendations, whether it be in the
10 2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC) at 212B
11 The best interest of the child as the paramount consideration in all matters concerning minor
children is confirmed by sections 9 of the Children’s Act and 28(2) of the Constitution of the
Repu blic of South Africa . In addition, section 7(1) of the Children’s Act sets out factors that must
be considered where relevant, when applying the best interest of the child standard. In S v M 2007
(2) SACR 539 (CC) at para 24B – C, Sachs J articulated the importance of the best interest of the
child in all matters concern ing children as follows: “ A truly child -centred approach requires a close
and individuali sed examination of the precise real -life situation of the particular child involved. To
apply a pre -determined formula for the sake of certainty, irrespective of the circumstances, would in
fact be contrary to the best interest s of the child concerned .”
High Court , Regional Court or in the Children’s Court. It is not the role of a
professional to make recommendations to achieve a particular outcome such
as shared residency , where such outcome is not substantiated by facts,
accredited tests and/or data and /or empirical research and literature. This is
tantamount to fitting a proverbial square peg into a round hole .
[64] Although social workers no d oubt have an important and often vital role to
play in the context of minor children in need of care and protection and/or
where it comes to issues of adoptions or alternative and foster care and
family reunification services,12 I have my reservations as to whether their
specific expertise is best suited to situations such as the present one where
shared residency is in issue between parents in a high conflict dynamic. In
my view compiling forensic reports to assist the court in such situations falls
more within the field of expertise of mental health professionals such as
psychologists . This is because the psychological functioning of the parents
may impact on effective and child -centred co-parenting and will need to be
considered by a suitabl y qualified professional in making recommendations
in respect of residency and cont act.
INPUT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATE:
[65] The Family Advocate conducted an interview with the parties as well as OR
in October 2024 and approached OR ’s school for collateral information .
[66] The Family Advocate ref ers to literature in support of the concern that one of
the cornerstones of successful shared residency is that parents can
communicate effectively with each other. The present matter has a long
history of high conflict and negative levels of communications . Even the
applicant's wife confirms this. Consequently, OR is going to be exposed to
an ongoing war, hostility and continuous litigation . Shared residency will only
add fuel to the fire and will not be in OR’s her interests.
12 Chapter s 7 to 15 of the Children’s Act regulates the protection of children , prevent ion and early
intervention services , alternative and foster care , adoption and inter -country adoptions and the role
social workers play in thes e processes
[67] The Family Advocate also referred the court to relevant literature and
research on the role of expert s, concerns regarding shared residency in high
conflict relationships and that quality parenting and close meaningful
relationships are unrelated to the amount of time the non -residential parent
and the child spent together. The literature also indicates that co -operative
co-parenting and high-quality parenting from the residential parent is more
beneficial than living with each parent for 50% of the time.
[68] It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Family Advocate:
a. Has not properly considered the information contained in the report
of Mrs Schutte .
b. Expressed an opinion on the expertise of Mrs Schutte which was
unwarranted in the circumstances and consequently overstepped its
functions and/or boundaries.
c. Failed to consider that Mrs Schutte found that OR will benefit from
the phasing in of extended contact .
d. Did not make an effort to investigate the new circumstances of the
respondent and to obtain any significant collateral information .
e. Their recommendation for contact on alternative weekends from the
Friday until the Sunday at 17h00 does not serve the interests of OR,
as it is far less than what the status quo presently is . Presently OR
exercises we ekend contact every alternative Thursday to the
Monday when the applicant returns her to school and a midweek
sleepover during the week when the applicant does not exercise his
weekend contact .
[69] The criticism levelled against the Family Advocate is not justified with in the
context of the facts before this court. The applicant’s main concern was no t
necessarily the respondent’s failed relationship with Mr Campher but rather
the issue he raised with the Family Advocate of alleged cocaine use by the
respondent. The Family Advocate investigated this concern and took
appropriate steps by referring each parent for drug tests.
[70] The important role of the Family Advocate in assisting the court by providing
objective insight and assistance is well established in our law, The Family
Advocate follows a neutr al approach in order that the true facts and
circumstances are ascertained . They assist the court by placing facts and
considerations before it and by making a balanced recommendation without
taking sides against one party in favour of the other .13
[71] As remarked in Terblanche v Terblanche , a failure to refer a matter
concerning the interests of a minor child for an investigation by the Family
Advocate may in certain circumstances be unwise and may even give rise to
a result, which is neither just nor expeditious .14 In the present matter the
further involvement of the Family Advocate was envisaged by the 2019
order.
THE BEST INTERESTS OF OR:
[72] When the court sits as upper g uardian in a dispute regarding the interests of
minor children , it has extremely wide powers to establishing what is in the
best interest of the minor child and is not bound by procedural structures or
by the limitations of the evidence presented or the contentions advanced by
the respective parties .15
[73] The court may have recourse to any source of information of whatever
nature which may be of assistance in resolving the residence or contact
dispute. I do not agree with the arguments raised by the applicant. The
Office of the Family Advocate has been of great assistance in this matter to
13 Terblanche v Terblanche 1992 (1) SA 501 (W) at 503C -H; Soller N.O. v G and Another 2003 (5)
SA 430 (WLD) at para 23, 24 and 27
14 At 503C
15 Shawzin v Lauver 1968 (4) SA 657 (A) at 662H – 663A as referred to in Terblanche supra at 504C
the court and raises important issues for the court to consider .
[74] As already indicated above, I agree with the Family Advocate ’s concerns that
Mrs Schutte makes several findings in her report that do not support sh ared
residency. They include :
a. That the re exists no need to change OR ’s status quo regarding her
residency and contact.
b. The high conflict relationship between the parties and the different
parenting styles and routines , which was also confirmed by the
applicant's spouse and OR . The parties agree that they cannot
communicate meaningfully .
c. The l ong-term litigation between the parties.
d. That the applicant seeks shared residency as he wants to be more
involved in the upbringing of OR , however the facts show that he
already has a close bond with OR and is an involved parent.
[75] The facts before this court does not support a shared residency regime. In P
V Z v L V Z this court considered the possible disruptive effect of shared
residency and whether the granting of sh ared residency serves the interests
of the minor children, which concern has been highlighted in various
judgements .16
[76] Some of the reasons for refusal by our courts to grant sh ared residency or to
endorse shared re sidency agreements include high conflict between the
parties, the part ies’ inability to effectively communicate as parents, children
having to continuously adapt to changing homes and different parenting
styles , the having to accommodate the separation of the ir parents by being
expected to adjust to different routines and often socio -economic
16 P V Z v L V Z and 2 Others matters (047502 /2024; 36830 /2022 ; 064524 /2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC
1046 (10 October 2024) at para 49 to 51
circumstances as they commute from one parent ’s home to the other .
[77] I share the Family Advocate's concern that OR shows emotional deregulated
behavior as reported by both parent s to the Family Advocate and as
observed by Mrs Schutte. The applicant reported that on Thursdays when
he drops off OR she is emotional. The respondent reported that OR is clingy
after she returns from the applicant . Mrs Schutte observed that OR start ed to
scratch herself and her fac ial expression became somber when the issue of
whether she wants to spend more time with her father and live in both
homes was canvassed with her. This is not age-appropriate behavior for a 7
year old .
[78] The Family Councilor also reports that the reason for the visit to the Family
Advocate according to OR was due to t he court not getting enough
information from “Mrs Irma”. I am concerned that OR is caught up in the
crossfire between he r parents and is placed in a highly undesirable position
where she is acutely aware of one or both parents ’ expectations . On the
facts before me I am concerned that O R’s emotional well-being will be
negatively impacted if the status quo regarding primary residence is varied.
[79] It is not a child's responsibility to ensure a parents’ emotional happiness and
to ad apt their lives and forfeit the stability and security of the ir established
home environment to accommodate sh ared residency to address a parents’
fear of missing out or that the parent is not spending enough time with the
child.17 In the present matter the facts indicate that the application for shared
residency is motivated by the applicant’s fear of missing out and remaining
relevant in OR’s life and upbringing , and not by OR’s needs and interests .
The applicant despite not having shared residency is an involved parent , and
he shares a close and loving bond with OR.
[80] OR’s school confirms that the applicant is an involved parent. Consequently,
there is no reason to increase his contact to such an extent, to include
17 P V Z supra para 69
shared residency to ensure that he continue s to be involved in OR's life and
to build and nurture the parent -child relationship. The parent -child
relationship is already in existence and is well-established - Mrs Schutte and
the Family Advocate both found that a good relationship exists between OR
and her father.
[81] To consider the best interest of OR, the court cannot look at a set of
circumstances in isolation. Regard should be had to not only what happened
in the past but also after the close of pleadings and even right up to the day
when the court considers the evidence includ ing the possibility of what might
happen in the future if the court makes a specific order.18
[82] As upper guardian I am concerned that OR who turns 8 on 1 3 March 2025 is
exposed to an ever-changing environment and the Family Advocate
observes that she reacts negatively to the demands of the frequent moves
between the two homes. I share the Family Advocate ’s concern that to
implement a phased -in contact which will result in shared residency on a
week/week rotation will not serve OR’s interests as it will be disruptive. OR is
presently well cared for in the primary residence of the respondent and there
is no compelling reason to vary the status quo to accommodate shared
residency .
[83] The applicant like many other parents , legal practitioners and even
professionals seem to be of the view that shared parenting involves a 50%
timeshare in raising children . This is a misperception .19
[84] A child is not a joint estate which has to be divided equally between the
parents in order for the child and the non -residential parent to have a healthy
and close bond, or for the non -residential parent to be fully involved and
remain relevant in the child’s life .
[85] I agree with the view expressed by the Family Advocate that parents often
18 P v P and Another 2002 (6) SA 105 (N) at 110C -D
19 B v M [2006] 3 A ll SA 109 (W) at 185
believe that the quality of the ir relationship with the child is determined by the
amount of contact time they spend with the child . However , the quality of a
relationship between a parent and a child depends on the quality of the
parenting, not the quantity of time spent with the child . In this regard the
Family Advocate referred the court to relevant research and literature .
[86] In addition, this court cannot ignore the detrimental effect of the high conflict
between the two parents on the parenting of OR , the different parenting
styles and routines at each home as experienced by OR and confirmed by
the applicant’s wife . High interparental conflict in my view is an aggravating
factor against the implementation of a successful shared residency regime.
International research highlights the polari sed views within the legal,
psychological and social worker s’ fraternity whether shared
parenting/ residency is likely to be in the best interest of children in separated
families when there is a high level of interparental conflict and the
detrimental effect thereof on children’s mental health . 20
[87] A child ’s care, residency and contact is not a social experiment – either the
facts support a variation of residency and/or contact, or they don’t. There are
no facts before me, which indicate that the status quo with regards to OR
remaining in the primary care of the respondent is not in her best interest.
20 Morbech M, Sellers R, Gustavson K & Holt T: Interparental Conflict and Children’s Depressive and
Anxiety Symptoms in Four Residence Arrangements (Family Transitions 2024, VOL.65, NO. 5, 355-
380) Published online: 7 August 2024 - https://doi.org/10.1080/28375300.2024.2382991 ; Deck P,
Eisensmith S, Skinner B & Cafaro J: Identifying Indicators of High -Conflict Divorce Among Parents: A
Systematic Review (Advances in Social Work : Summer/Fall 2023 , 23(2), p392 – 408; Nikupeteri A
& Laitinen M: High -Conflict Separations and Differentiated Professional responses – From
Confrontational Interaction to Post -Separation Violence and Stalking (Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage 2022, VOL.63, NOS. 7 -8, 506 -525)Published online: 26 December 2022 –
https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2022.2157667 ; Martinez -Pampliega, Herrero M , Cormenzana S,
Corral S, Sanz M, Merino L, I riarte L, Ochoa de Alda I, Alcaniz L & Alvarez I: Custody and Child
Symptomatology in High Conflict Divorce: An Analysis of Latent Profiles (Psicothema 2021, Vol. 33,
No. 1, p 95 – 102); O’Hara KL, Sandler IN, Wolc hik SA, Tein J & Rhodes A (Arizona State University) :
Parenting Time, Parenting Quality, Interparental Conflict, and Mental Health Problems of Children in
High-Conflict Divorce ( J Fam Psychol . 2019 September ; 33(6): 690-703.doi: 10. 1073/fam0000556 ;
Stokkebekk J, Iversen AC, Hollekim R & Ness O: “Keeping balance”, “Keeping distance” and
“Keeping on with life”: Child pos itions in divorced families with prolonged conflicts (Children and
Youth Services Review 102 (2019) 109 -119); Mahrer NE, O”Hara K, Sandler IN & Wolchi k: Does
Shared Parenting Help or Hurt Children in High Conflict Divorced Families? (Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage 2018 ; 59(4): 324 -347. Doi: 10.1080/ 10502556.2018. 1454200)
[88] The significance of section 7(1)(b) of the Children’s Act which refers to the
attitude of the parent s or any specific parent towards the exercise of parental
rights and responsibilities in respect of the child should not be brushed
aside . As upper guardian I am very concerned of the over ly critical approach
that the applicant takes in respect with the way the respondent cares for OR.
His concerns have not been confirmed by important collaterals sources such
as the school .
[89] From the facts before me i t is evident that OR still considers the respondent
as her primary caregiver despite the extended contact with her father.
Section 7 (1)(d) provides for the likely effect on the child of any change in the
child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on OR of any separation
from a sibling or other caregiver should be considered . On the facts before
me OR has a particularly close bond with her sister AL and she has been
cared for by the respondent and the same nanny since her birth . The fact
that OR now has a new baby sister L, and that she over time may well also
develop a close bond with L, does not mean that OR ’s primary residence
should be disrupted, just so that she can spend more time with baby L .
[90] To reconsider residency and contact every time a new stepsibling is born will
lead to court s being inundated with applications by parents, arguing that the
residency or contact should be varied in order for the child from a previous
union to be able to form a bond with a child from a new union. This will not
serve the interests of minor children nor the interest of justice. T he facts
before me, do not indicate that the respondent will frustrate the development
of a healthy relationship between OR and baby L.
[91] Having regard to the facts before me and considering the factors listed in
section 7(1) of the Children’s Act it is in OR’s best interest that the extended
weekend contact should remain as reflected in my order . As OR’s is now in
school , and as raised by the Family Councilor , she is busy with school
related activities during the week , the midweek sleepover is replaced with a
midweek visit to strike a balance between OR’s need for contact with her
father on the one hand and to ensure the least disruption in her routin e and
emotional wellbeing on the other.
COSTS:
[92] Costs remain in the discretion of the court . The applicant’s bold approach
that no court will disagree with the expert that found in his favour and
substantiating the relief that he seeks exclusively on the report of Mrs
Schutte whilst he knew beforehand what the respondent’s concerns
regarding the report were , left the respondent with no option but to oppose
the application . The applicant’s papers further largely consisted of a
repetition of the 2019 application . Furthermore, this court takes a dim view
of the way the applicant attempted to cast the respondent in a bad light by
referring to what was said in confidential mediation proce edings and by
exploiting her failed relationship with Mr Campher and using the perceived
issues pertaining to the child born from that relationship to bolster his case
for shared residency. This approach warrants a punitive cost order.
[93] The application was also launched and set down for hearing before a report
by the Family Advocate was obtained as provided for in the 2019 order .
[94] The respondent raised valid concerns in respect of the recommendations
made by Mrs Schutte. I therefore see no reason why the respondent should
be out of poc ket in these circumstances. Both parties were represented
by experienced legal practitioners and consequently Scale B is appropriate.
ORDER
[95] The order I make is:
1. Paragraph 3 of the order granted on 25 September 2019 by Tuchten
J under case number 46957/2019 is hereby varied by the following
order.
2. The primary residence of the minor child O _ R_ S_ (“O_”), born 13
March 2017 shall remain with the respondent.
3. The Applicant is to exercise contact to O _ as follows:
3.1 Alternate weekend contact from Friday after school when the
applicant shall collect O _ from school until the Monday
morning when the applicant shall drop O _ off at school;
3.2 Midweek visits every alternate Wednesday from after school
when applicant shall collect O _ from school until 17:30 when
the applicant shall drop O _ off at the respondent's residence;
3.3 Alternate short school holidays and half of every long school
holiday with Easter and Christmas (including New Years eve
and New Years Day) to rotate on an annual basis, with one
parent to have O _ for the first half of the holiday and the
other parent to have O _ for the second half of the holiday;
3.4 Alternate public holidays, not attached to a weekend. The
applicant shall collect O _ at 9:00 from the respondent and
return her to the respondent by 18:00 or on such other time
as agreed to between the parties;
3.5 The parties to share O _'s birthday parties’ subject thereto
that such contact does not disrupt O _’s school and extra -
mural responsibilities and/or activities;
3.6 O_ shall have reasonable time with her half -sister A _, and
her half -sister L _, on their respective birthdays as agreed
between the parties’ subject thereto that such contact does
not interfere with or disrupts O _’s school and extra -mural
responsibilities and/or activities;
3.7 O_ to spend the weekend of Father's Day with the applicant
and the weekend of Mother's Day with the respondent,
commencing on a Friday after school until Monday morning;
3.8 The principal of right of first refusal shall apply if either the
applicant or respondent cannot take care of O _ for sleepover
contact in their allocated time;
3.9 Regular telephonic contact to be maintained;
3.10 Such further contact as agreed to between the parties from
time to time.
4. The applicant is to pay the costs of the application on an attorney
and client scale, to be taxed on Scale B.
HAUPT AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
This Judgment was prepared and authored by the judge whose name is reflected
and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties / their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines system and by release to SAFLII. The date for hand down is deemed to
be 24 February 2025.
Counsel for the Applicant
Adv. L Bedeker
Instructed by :
DI SIENA ATTORNEYS
Appearance for Respondent
Mr S L Augustyn
(Attorney with right of appearance)
Matter heard on: 17 September and 7 November 2024.