J[…] VW[…] v PC[…] VW[…]

The parties are spouses engaged in a pending divorce action in another court, where patrimonial benefits and the accrual system are in dispute. The applicant brought an interlocutory application in terms of Rule 43(1)(b) and Rule 43(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court, seeking a further contribution towards her legal costs to continue the divorce trial scheduled for June 2025. She sought 75% of R278,070. Previous Rule 43 orders had already been granted in her favour, including a contribution of R132,000 in July 2023 and daily trial costs in May 2024. The respondent opposed the application, contending that there was no material change in the applicant’s circumstances and that she had failed to make full disclosure of her own financial means. The applicant alleged limited income and reliance on credit facilities, while the respondent alleged financial distress, including debt obligations, risk to jointly owned property, and insufficient liquidity.

The application for a further contribution towards legal costs was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment reinforces the evidentiary burden on applicants seeking additional relief under Rule 43(6) and highlights the central importance of full and frank financial disclosure by both parties. It confirms that even where prior Rule 43 orders exist, an applicant must independently demonstrate a material change in circumstances and financial need. The case also illustrates the court’s cautious approach to costs in interlocutory divorce proceedings, guided by section 10 of the Divorce Act.