08 Jun: LJ Costs Orders A’s: [E3] EoP Law Bona Fide Disputes of Fact Test: Marlise Steenekamp

* 08 Jun: LJ Filing: EoP Law Pro Se Applicant Reply to Respondents Costs Order Question [PDF: pp.139].
» LJ Costs Orders A’s Filing: [E3] EoP Law Bona Fide Disputes of Fact Test: Marlise Steenekamp [pp.03].
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GME / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMZA| EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP  Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Psych, EoP v WiP Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.

EoP Law Bona Fide Disputes of Fact Test

542/21: LJ v Elliott Estate: Marlise Steenekamp.

Table Summary [ToC[1]; Index[2]] ITO: Room Hire[3]; Wightman[4], SA Football Assoc[5],
Plascon-Evans[6], Peterson[7]; Rothman[8]

 .

EV: Evidence | DN: Denial. | TC: Truthseeker Credibility.

Credibility[9]: Honesty Truthseeker: Evidence Sharing: [9] High; [5] BFFiD; [0] None.

No FiD: No Fact in Dispute: Allegations Not Denied are regarded as admitted [ √ ].

BF FiD: Bona Fide Fact in Dispute: Bare Denials [1-2] without evidence are not bona fide disputes of fact. BF FiD [5 or above]

 .

Ego-literate Honesty Truthseeking Evidence Sharing {LJ Index: E12}
TC: evidentiary truthseeker cooperator factors considered on a question of fact/law in dispute
[TC: Not included with each possible fact in dispute to save pages]

2.1 Clarify Preferences 2.4 Plain Language 2.7 Evidence Truthseeking
2.2 Answer Questions 2.4 Provide Definitions 2.8 Get Over Anger
2.3 Actively Listen 2.5 Evaluate Evidence 2.9 Mediator Referral
2.3 Query Interpretations 2.6 Agree to Disagree 2.10 Evidence Decision

 

 

# Cause of Action /
Possible Fact in Dispute
LJ Index Fact in Dispute
LJ MS
EV TC DN EV TC No BF
A-D No Bona Fide Fact in Dispute 9 1.25 100% 9|1.25
A Breach of Barter Exchange Agreement
A1 No Breach: Applicant or Deceased: 7 years A 9
E 9
A2 Breach: Isobel Rohwer: 10 March 2020 A 9
E 9
A3 Breach: Isobel Rohwer negligent or intentional ‘Executor’ misrepresentation A 9
E 9
A4 Existence of Barter Exchange Agreement A 9
E 9
A5 Termination Terms: 3 Month Severance Package. A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
A6 Services Terms: Property Rental Services Provided A 9
E 9
A7 Services Terms: Labour Services Rendered A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
A8 Dog Walking: 3 times a week A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
A9 Safety/Labour Girl Friday A 9
E 9
A10 Dog Poo Composting A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
A11 Garden Tree Branch to Landfill Services A 9
E 9
A12 Roy Paralegal A 9
E 9
A13 Dawn Eviction Paralegal Advice A 9
E 9
A14 Dawn Compensation Inheritance A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
A15 Bhe v Magistrate Khayelitsha E 9
A 9
A Honesty Info-Operations Credibility 9 1.5 100% 9|1.5
B S29 Claims Filed with Elliot Estate Executor
B1 S 29 Claim Filed with Elliott Estates Heirs / Executor A 9 C 2 9|2
E 9 9|0
B2 S 33 Rejected Claim Notice A 9 C 2 9|2
E 9 9|0
B Honesty Info-Operations Credibility 9 1 100% 9|1
C Breach of Roy Adoption Instructions
C1 Breach of Roy Adoption Instructions A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
C2 Existence of Roy Adoption Agreement A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
C3 Terms of Changes of Roy Adoption Instructions Agreement A 9 C D 3 9|3
E 9 0 9|0
C Honesty Info-Operations Credibility 9 1.5 100% 9|1.5
D S29 Claim Filed with Elliott Estate Executor
D1 S29 Claim Filed with Elliott Estate Heirs / Executor A 9 C 2 9|2
E 9 0 9|0
D2 S 33 Rejected Claim Notice A 9 C 2 9|2
E 9 0 9|0
D Honesty Info-Operations Credibility 9 1 100% 9|1

Only main documents [A, C, D & E] included, to reduce pages of documents. If there is disagreement on any alleged fact in disputes, the specific documents including information and evidence on that particular alleged fact in dispute can be included in the final document.

 .

.

——– Footnotes ——-

 [1] http://lj-v-gme.tygae.org.za/pdf/20-08-27_SAPS-DPCI_Annex_ToC_Chron.pdf

[2] Evidentiary documents as per Court Record: LJ Index
http://lj-v-gme.tygae.org.za/pdf/mc/21-05-20_LJvEGME_LJ-Index.pdf

[3] Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T)

[4] Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour Pty Ltd & Another [2008] ZASCA 6; 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA)

[5] SA Football Association v Mangope (2013) 34 ILJ 311 (LAC)

[6] Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd. v Van Riebeck Paints (Pty) Ltd. (53/84) [1984] ZASCA 51; [1984] 2 All SA 366 (A); 1984 (3) SA 623; 1984 (3) SA 620 (21 May 1984)

[7] Petersen v Cuthbert & Co Ltd 1945 AD 420 428

[8] Rothman v Curr Vivier Inc 1997 (4) SA 540 (C) 551; Peterson v Cuthbert & Co Ltd

[9] EoP Summary of EoP v WiP Law Supplementary: Truthseeker Credibility

.

Leave a Comment