Client Success Story: Court Upholds Interpretation of Divorce Agreement

Snyman Attorneys recently achieved an important victory for our client, the Respondent, in the Western Cape High Court in the matter of Fullard v Fullard (Case no: 14817/2024). This case served as a crucial reminder that courts will enforce the clear and entire intention of a divorce agreement (a Consent Paper) and will not indulge strained or opportunistic interpretations by one party seeking an unfair windfall.

We are proud to have successfully defended our client against such an application, which the Court ultimately dismissed with a cost order against the Applicant.

The Applicant's Opportunistic Claim

The dispute centred on the interpretation of the parties' Consent Paper, which was made an order of court upon their divorce. The Applicant (our client's ex-husband) launched an application claiming he was entitled to a declaratory order for 90% of our client's pension interest. He also demanded a specific monetary payment of R280,299.98 and a vast, invasive list of our client's personal bank statements and pension documents.

The Applicant's entire case rested on a "strained and self-serving interpretation" of the agreement. He conveniently focused in isolation on a clause which stated 90% of the pension interest was to be paid to his attorney's trust account.

However, as the Court found, the Applicant "conveniently omitted to include the provisions of Clause 9.1 in his interpretation". This crucial, subsequent clause (9.1) explicitly stated that once the funds landed in the Applicant's attorney's trust account, the Applicant was then obligated to pay our client (the Respondent) 40% of that total pension interest.

The agreement was never intended to give the Applicant 90% of the pension. It was simply a procedural mechanism to channel the funds through his attorney, after which the actual division (roughly 60/40, after tax) would take place. The Applicant's attempt to read Clause 7.1 in isolation to claim the lion's share was precisely the kind of opportunism the settlement agreement was designed to guard against.

Complications and Key Legal Principles

The matter was complicated by the fact that our client had changed jobs before the divorce was finalised. This meant the pension fund no longer recognised her as an “active contributing member” of their fund. They then determined that they could no longer give effect to the order as written, as our client was no longer an active contributing member. The fund subsequently paid the benefit directly to our client.

• Attempt to Resolve: Our client, acting in good faith, had proposed an amendment to the Consent Paper to deal with this issue, but the Applicant "elected to ignore such proposal".

• Payment Made: Despite the Applicant's non-cooperation, after receiving the funds, our client disclosed this and made a substantial payment of to the Applicant's attorneys.

• The Law of Set-Off: The Applicant was enraged by a "set-off". We successfully argued that our client was entitled to apply set-off. The Court affirmed this principle, noting that our client had provided proof that the Applicant was indebted to her for various other expenses (loans, maintenance, etc.). Set-off (or compensatio) occurs automatically by law when two parties are mutually indebted, and the one debt extinguishes the other. The Court found our client satisfactorily complied with the requirements to prove this.

The Judgment: A Victory for Fairness

Judge Mantame saw the Applicant's case for what it was: an attempt to rewrite a bargain he had already made. The Court reaffirmed that it cannot create new contracts for parties; it must simply enforce the bargains into which they have deliberately entered.

The Court dismissed all the Applicant's requests, finding his complaints to be "unrealistic, misguided, and ill-conceived" and his prayers "incompetent".

The final order was a complete success for our client. The application was dismissed and the Applicant was ordered to pay our client’s costs.

This judgment reinforces the vital principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). At Snyman Attorneys, we are committed to meticulously interpreting contracts and protecting our clients from opportunistic litigation. If you are facing a dispute regarding a divorce settlement or any other contractual matter, we invite you to contact us for clear, authoritative legal advice.