Cullen v Jonas and Another (3027/2021) [2023] ZAECQBHC 30 (17 May 2023)

Cullen v Jonas and Another (3027/2021) [2023] ZAECQBHC 30 (17 May 2023)

The court found that the letter 'POC1' sent by the defendants to the plaintiff was defamatory in its ordinary meaning, as it implied unethical and dishonest conduct by the plaintiff in her academic role. The defendants, given the seriousness of the allegations and the plaintiff's position, had a reasonable expectation that the letter would be published to third parties such as union officials and university colleagues. Although the defence of qualified privilege was provisionally available due to the parties' respective duties, the evidence established that both defendants acted with malice: they did not believe the truth of the allegations, withheld the identities of complainants without...

Citation
[2023] ZAECQBHC 30
Parties
Plaintiff: Professor Margaret Cullen; Defendant: Dr Randall Patrick Jonas; Defendant: Professor Cecil Arnolds
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2023
Case Number
3027/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Oral Evidence and Argument
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay R60,000 plus interest and costs.
Judges
Bands
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Publication, Damages
Delict Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Publication Damages

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Margaret Cullen

Plaintiff

Dr Randall Patrick Jonas

Defendant

Professor Cecil Arnolds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Oral Evidence and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter 'POC1' sent by the defendants to the plaintiff constitutes a defamatory publication.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had a reasonable expectation that the letter would be published to third parties.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the publication of 'POC1'.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the letter 'POC1' sent by the defendants to the plaintiff was defamatory in its ordinary meaning, as it implied unethical and dishonest conduct by the plaintiff in her academic role. The defendants, given the seriousness of the allegations and the plaintiff's position, had a reasonable expectation that the letter would be published to third parties such as union officials and university colleagues. Although the defence of qualified privilege was provisionally available due to the parties' respective duties, the evidence established that both defendants acted with malice: they did not believe the truth of the allegations, withheld the identities of complainants without...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay R60,000 plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of R60,000.00.
  • The first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit on a High Court scale.