Brathwaite v South African HIV Clinicians Society (38564/14) [2017] ZAGPJHC 89 (15 March 2017)

Brathwaite v South African HIV Clinicians Society (38564/14) [2017] ZAGPJHC 89 (15 March 2017)

The court found that the Applicant failed to establish a clear right to final interdictory relief. The Respondent's publications were based on expert evidence that the gel should have been registered as a medicine and that its advertising was misleading and potentially harmful to public health. The Respondent acted within its mandate to protect public health and did not intend to defame the Applicant. The statements constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, were honestly expressed, and were reasonable given the circumstances. The Applicant's bare denials and failure to challenge the reasonableness of the Respondent's conduct were insufficient. The application was dismissed,...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Dr Hugh Brathwaite; Respondent: South African HIV Clinicians Society
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2017
Case Number
38564/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
MAKUME
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Fair Comment, Reasonable Publication, Professional Reputation
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Final Interdict Fair Comment Reasonable Publication Professional Reputation

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Hugh Brathwaite

Applicant

South African HIV Clinicians Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's publications regarding the Applicant's pre-sex gel were defamatory and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a clear right to final interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's statements constituted fair comment, were true, privileged, or reasonable under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to establish a clear right to final interdictory relief. The Respondent's publications were based on expert evidence that the gel should have been registered as a medicine and that its advertising was misleading and potentially harmful to public health. The Respondent acted within its mandate to protect public health and did not intend to defame the Applicant. The statements constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, were honestly expressed, and were reasonable given the circumstances. The Applicant's bare denials and failure to challenge the reasonableness of the Respondent's conduct were insufficient. The application was dismissed,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of two counsel.