LOP144 A2 Knowt Priority Legislation CORRECTED

What does YM v LB say about ordering a child to undergo DNA testing?

Decide paternity on a balance of probabilities. Where it is already established, scientific confirmation is unnecessary. A test in a genuinely disputed case requires a child-specific best-interests assessment.

The evidence establishes paternity on a balance of probabilities. The father wants DNA certainty. Which case governs and what should the court do?

YM v LB. Refuse the unnecessary test. The civil standard is a balance of probabilities, and scientific certainty alone does not justify the intrusion.

Paternity is genuinely disputed. Does YM v LB permit a court to order testing?

Potentially. Assess this child's best interests and whether limiting privacy and bodily integrity is reasonable and justifiable under Constitution section 36(1).

What common-law rule did Petersen develop?

Paternal grandparents owe support to a child of unmarried parents to the same extent as maternal grandparents. The ordinary requirements for grandparental support still apply.

The parents cannot meet the child's needs, and paternal grandparents object because the parents never married. Which case answers that objection?

Petersen. Birth outside marriage does not exclude paternal grandparents. Investigate the child's needs, the parents' shortfall and the grandparents' means.

What does KLVC v SDI say about deciding whether a father acquires rights under Children's Act section 21(1)(b)?

Acquisition follows by operation of law if the factual requirements are met. Assess ongoing contribution or good-faith attempts and a reasonable period in context.

A recognised unmarried father visits his infant regularly and tries to help with costs despite the mother's resistance. Which case guides the section 21 enquiry?

KLVC v SDI. Assess his actual involvement and good-faith efforts in context, including the infant's age and barriers to contributing. Apply both upbringing and maintenance requirements.

Did KLVC v SDI decide whether all three elements in section 21(1)(b) are legally conjunctive?

The Supreme Court of Appeal left that issue open because the requirements were met on the facts. For the exam, apply all three, as the lecturer teaches.

How informed must a guardian's consent be under Van Dyk v South African Railways and Harbours?

The guardian must sufficiently direct their mind to the type and essential terms of the particular contract. Physical presence and knowledge of every incidental term are unnecessary.

A father gives clear written consent to his son's railway employment but misses the signing and does not know every ordinary term. Which case applies?

Van Dyk. Physical absence and ignorance of every ordinary term do not defeat informed assent. Check whether an undisclosed term materially changes the transaction authorised.

What effect can informed later guardian confirmation have under Fouché v Battenhausen?

Later confirmation can supply the missing assistance and make the contract binding as if originally assisted, provided the guardian sufficiently knows its nature and material terms.

A guardian ratifies a car purchase. The minor had induced it by lying about age, reasonably deceiving the seller. Which case addresses the minor's claim to unwind it?

Fouché v Battenhausen. Informed ratification made the contract binding. The inducing age fraud, which reasonably deceived the seller, bars restitutio in integrum.

Would the Fouché result make the contract binding if the guardian never assisted or ratified it?

The missing assistance remains decisive. Fouché concerned a confirmed contract. Under Louw, age fraud alone does not make an unassisted contract enforceable against the minor.

What did Louw v MJ&H Trust decide about a minor's fraudulent claim to be of age?

Age fraud alone does not make an unassisted contract enforceable against the minor. It may bar restitutio in integrum and may support a separate delict claim if its elements are proved.

A seller claims arrears and future instalments from an unassisted minor who lied about age. Which case applies and what happens to the contract claim?

Louw. The seller cannot enforce the instalments against the minor merely because of the lie. A separately pleaded and proved delict may support damages.

In the course's general rule, who can enforce an ordinary unassisted minor's contract before repudiation?

The major is bound by a civil obligation. The minor's obligation is natural and unenforceable against the minor unless validly ratified. Louw illustrates the bar to enforcement despite age fraud.

What does Wood v Davies establish about a prejudicial transaction concluded by a guardian?

A transaction concluded for a minor by a guardian can be set aside through restitutio in integrum for substantial prejudice. Restore the parties as far as possible.

A guardian commits a minor to an onerous land purchase. The former minor seeks cancellation and a refund. Which case and remedy apply?

Wood v Davies. Prove substantial prejudice and seek restitutio in integrum. Restoration can include refunding instalments and crediting the seller for occupation.

A properly assisted transaction was fair when made. The asset later loses value. Is that enough for the remedy in Wood v Davies?

A later fall in value alone is insufficient. Show substantial prejudice in the transaction when concluded. In Wood, the onerous terms and burdens were inherent in the deal.

When can a guardian face a personal costs order under Tshona?

Personal costs are exceptional. A guardian may be ordered to pay personally for frivolous or reckless litigation or other improper conduct, even if they only assisted the child.

A parent backs the child's case with reckless, baseless accusations. Which case supports a personal costs order and why?

Tshona. The court can award costs de bonis propriis for the parent's own improper litigation conduct. Ordinary guardian assistance or losing the case is insufficient.

What did the prescribed 1998 Christian Lawyers case decide about Constitution section 11?

The court held that the foetus falls outside “everyone” in section 11. It upheld the exception because the challenge premised on a foetal constitutional right to life disclosed no cause of action.

A claimant says the termination statute violates the foetus's own constitutional right to life. Which case answers the claim and how?

Christian Lawyers, 1998. The foetus does not hold the section 11 right to life. The challenge therefore failed on the pleadings.

A 16-year-old refuses to consult her parents before a termination. What is the relevant consent rule, and where does it come from?

Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act section 5 governs. Require her informed consent and advise consultation. Refusal to consult cannot bar termination. The prescribed 1998 judgment dealt with foetal rights.

Give three textual reasons why the court excluded the foetus from section 11 in Christian Lawyers, 1998.

The Constitution gives the foetus no express protection. Section 28's child protections presuppose age beginning at birth. Reading “everyone” consistently across the Bill of Rights also points away from including the foetus.

Give three further reasons supporting the section 11 result in Christian Lawyers, 1998.

The nasciturus fiction requires live birth. Section 12(2) protects reproductive decisions and bodily control. A foetal right to life would create anomalies, including where pregnancy endangers the woman's life.

What did Jordaan hold about the marriage surname exceptions in the Births and Deaths Registration Act?

Section 26(1)(a)–(c) irrationally differentiated and unfairly discriminated by gender under Constitution sections 9(1) and 9(3). The court suspended invalidity for 24 months and provided gender-neutral interim exceptions.

Home Affairs says a husband needs special Director-General authorisation solely because he wants his wife's surname. Which case and remedy answer that?

Jordaan. While its interim order operates, either spouse may assume the other's surname after marriage without section 26(1) authorisation.

What does Jordaan's interim order allow for former surnames after marriage, divorce or widowhood?

A person may resume a former surname or add a former surname to one assumed after marriage, within the order's categories. The interim exceptions continue until remedial law takes effect.

What domicile rule does Grindal v Grindal illustrate?

Under Domicile Act section 3, the existing domicile persists until a new domicile is acquired. Domicile of origin can return only under section 1 or 2.

A woman leaves her Australian domicile, stays temporarily in England and plans to return to Cape Town. Which case applies and where is she domiciled?

Grindal. Australia remains her domicile. The temporary stay and intention to return to Cape Town do not establish a new domicile.

What changes in Grindal's scenario if she lawfully arrives in Cape Town and intends to settle there indefinitely?

If she has capacity to choose, lawful presence and indefinite settlement intent together establish a Cape Town domicile of choice under section 1. Section 3 then displaces the Australian domicile.

What did Prinsloo's Curator Bonis decide about marrying after a declaration of unsound mind?

The declaration shifts the common-law burden to the person asserting capacity at the ceremony. Marriage can be valid if the person then understood its nature, duties and responsibilities.

A curator remains appointed, but evidence shows the person understood the marriage and its responsibilities at the ceremony. Which case applies?

Prinsloo's Curator Bonis. Proof of actual capacity at the ceremony can rebut the presumption arising from the earlier declaration. The marriage can be valid.

What does Mafuya v Lizwe show about challenging a marriage on the basis of dementia?

Capacity is tested at the ceremony. The challenge failed because the applicant did not displace the respondent's version of a lucid interval or produce adequate evidence of incapacity at that time.

A daughter challenges her father's marriage using a later letter about dementia. She leaves the spouse's account of lucidity unanswered. Which case applies and why?

Mafuya v Lizwe. On those motion papers, the spouse's account was accepted under Plascon-Evans. The later letter did not establish incapacity at the ceremony.

What changed fact would materially strengthen the challenge in Mafuya v Lizwe?

Reliable evidence directed at the ceremony showing the person could not understand the nature and responsibilities of marriage would directly address capacity. A diagnosis by itself leaves that question open.