Chalom v Wright and Another (4104/13) [2015] ZAGPJHC 105 (4 June 2015)

Chalom v Wright and Another (4104/13) [2015] ZAGPJHC 105 (4 June 2015)

The court found that the affidavits in question were made in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and thus constituted privileged occasions. The statements were relevant and germane to the issues before the courts and the LSNP. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Wright acted with malice or had subjective knowledge of the falsity of the statements. The court further held that imposing a duty on attorneys to verify every client statement would be unduly burdensome and contrary to the attorney-client relationship. As such, both claims were dismissed on the basis of privilege and lack of legal duty.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 105
Parties
Plaintiff: Raymond Edward Chalom; Defendant: Graham Wright; Defendant: Marcelle Terezakis
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2015
Case Number
4104/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Legal Argument on Privilege and Duty of Care Determined First
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Weiner
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Duty of Care, Attorney Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Duty of Care Attorney Professional Conduct

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Edward Chalom

Plaintiff

Graham Wright

Defendant

Marcelle Terezakis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Legal Argument on Privilege and Duty of Care Determined First

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavits filed in the Constitutional Court, Durban High Court, and LSNP were made on privileged occasions.
  2. 2 Whether the statements in claim 1 are defamatory if not privileged.
  3. 3 Whether Wright owed a legal duty of care to the Plaintiff to verify the truth and accuracy of Mrs T's allegations in claim 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavits in question were made in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and thus constituted privileged occasions. The statements were relevant and germane to the issues before the courts and the LSNP. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Wright acted with malice or had subjective knowledge of the falsity of the statements. The court further held that imposing a duty on attorneys to verify every client statement would be unduly burdensome and contrary to the attorney-client relationship. As such, both claims were dismissed on the basis of privilege and lack of legal duty.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs.