Buttner v Buttner

The parties were married in 1977 out of community of property, excluding accrual, in terms of an antenuptial contract. During their 27‑year marriage they pooled their income and regarded all assets as jointly owned, despite the formal proprietary regime. The husband was the primary breadwinner, while the wife contributed mainly through homemaking, childcare, and part‑time work. Significant assets were accumulated, including interests in close corporations and residential properties in South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Upon the breakdown of the marriage, disputes arose concerning the redistribution of assets under s 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, particularly the proceeds of the sale of the Brisbane house and the wife’s member’s interest in Wanderer Night 20 CC. The trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife R360 000 and token maintenance of R10 per month. The husband appealed against the redistribution, maintenance, and costs orders.

The appeal succeeded in part. The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the redistribution order of R360 000 and substituted it with a reduced amount reflecting an equitable redistribution based on equal sharing principles. The token maintenance and costs orders were also reconsidered in light of the corrected approach to discretion.

The case is important for clarifying the correct approach to redistribution orders under s 7(3) and (4) of the Divorce Act. It confirms that a court must focus on the claimant spouse’s contribution to the other spouse’s estate and not the absence of contribution by the latter. The judgment also reinforces the recognition of non‑financial contributions in long marriages and supports a flexible, equity‑based approach to redistribution where spouses treated their marriage as a partnership.