Atlantis Corporate Travel (Pty) Ltd v Scharli (2012/9344) [2013] ZAGPJHC 26 (20 February 2013)

Atlantis Corporate Travel (Pty) Ltd v Scharli (2012/9344) [2013] ZAGPJHC 26 (20 February 2013)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing because they failed to specify the dates on which the alleged defamatory statements were made and the persons to whom they were made. This lack of particularity was prejudicial to the defendant, who was entitled to know the case against him in order to plead properly. The requirements of Rule 18 regarding pleadings were not met, and the exception was accordingly upheld.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff: Atlantis Corporate Travel (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Marc Scharli
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Case Number
2012/9344
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 15 days; plaintiff to pay costs.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Defamation, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 Particularity, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 Particularity Exception Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlantis Corporate Travel (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Marc Scharli

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and lack sufficient particularity regarding the alleged defamatory statement.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is prejudiced in pleading to the allegations as formulated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing because they failed to specify the dates on which the alleged defamatory statements were made and the persons to whom they were made. This lack of particularity was prejudicial to the defendant, who was entitled to know the case against him in order to plead properly. The requirements of Rule 18 regarding pleadings were not met, and the exception was accordingly upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 15 days; plaintiff to pay costs.

Orders

  • The exception to paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim is upheld and the paragraph struck out.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the particulars of claim within 15 days of the date of this order.