100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
Previously searched by you
LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.R48,70
LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
,QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and
answer the questions that follow. LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 3
John and Mary Smith got married in Hawaii in December 1983. At
that time, they were British citizens and Mary was domiciled in
London, while John was working in New York on a two-year fixed
term contract with the possibility of further renewal. However, just
before the marriage, John was offered a very senior permanent
position with a South African retail brand and he had entered into
negotiations with the company at that stage. They relocated to
Johannesburg, South Africa shortly after getting married and
established a domicile there. Two children were born from the
marriage and Mary stayed at home to look after them full-time. In
2022, Mary filed for divorce in the South Gauteng High Court. She
also applied for a redistribution of assets. 1.1 Which legal system
applies to the formal validity of John and Mary’s marriage in terms
of the South African rules of private international law? (2) 1.2 How
would the South African court determine where John was
domiciled at the time of entering into the marriage? Note: The
court must determine where he was domiciled in December 1983.
(3) 1.3 Mary’s legal counsel would like to argue that the
proprietary consequences of the parties’ marriage are governed
by South African law as the intended matrimonial domicile when
the parties got married. Advise her legal team on their prospects
of success considering relevant case law. Your answer must
include a properly referenced, full case discussion of Sadiku v
Sadiku 30498/06 (unreported) as well as the relevant points in
this regard from the prescribed article by Neels and Wethmar-
Lemmer 2008 TSAR 587 – 596. (15) 1.4 Assume for purposes of
this question that John was found to be domiciled in England at
the time of entering into the marriage. Would Mary be successful
, in obtaining a redistribution order in terms of s 7(3) of the Divorce
Act 70 of 1979? Discuss the different views with reference to case
law in this regard. (10) 1.5 Mary executed a will in Hawaii in which
she appointed John as her sole heir. At the time of execution of
the will, she was domiciled in England and a British citizen. She
retained her British citizenship throughout her life. After her
divorce from John was finalised, Mary executed a second will in
France that expressly revoked her first will and appointed her two
children as her heirs. At the time of its execution, she was
domiciled in South Africa. Mary’s first will was formally valid in
terms of Hawaiian law (only). Mary’s second will was formally
invalid in terms of all its possible testing systems, but formally
valid in terms of Hawaiian law. In terms of the rules of intestate
succession of Hawaii, France and South Africa, her two children
would be LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 4 her intestate heirs. Mary
died from a heart attack in May 2023. Who would inherit her
estate? Note: You have to apply the relevant provision of the Wills
Act 7 of 1953. (5) 1.6 John gave Mary a BMW motor as a gift in
February 1984. During the divorce proceedings, the court had to
determine the validity of the donation. Assume that, in terms of
English law, donations between spouses are regarded as a
personal consequence of marriage, but that under South African
law, it falls under proprietary consequences of marriage. 1.6.1
Under which legal category (or categories) will the two potentially
applicable legal rules be placed if lex fori classification is
followed? (2) 1.6.2 Under which legal category (or categories) will
the two potentially applicable legal rules be placed if lex causae
classification is followed? Explain your answer. (3) [5] [40]
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Seller28. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R48,70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
