Da Luz v Faim (2003/25022) [2014] ZAGPJHC 243 (12 June 2014)

Da Luz v Faim (2003/25022) [2014] ZAGPJHC 243 (12 June 2014)

The court found that the statements published by the defendant were defamatory and wrongful. The defendant's absence and failure to contest the facts meant the plaintiff's evidence was uncontested. The publication, though limited to the Portuguese community in Johannesburg, had a severe impact on the plaintiff's business and social standing. The court rejected the defence of fair comment and public interest, finding that the statements went beyond permissible criticism and amounted to an attack on the plaintiff's integrity. Considering the reluctance of South African courts to award excessive damages for defamation, the court determined that R200,000.00 was an appropriate quantum for the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 243
Parties
Plaintiff: Carvalho, Fernando Da Luz; Defendant: Gomes, Hernani Ricardo Faim
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Case Number
2003/25022
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is ordered to pay damages for defamation.
Judges
Mabasa
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages for Defamation, Fair Comment, Business Reputation, Loss of Income
Delict Defamation Damages for Defamation Fair Comment Business Reputation Loss of Income

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

Parties

Carvalho, Fernando Da Luz

Plaintiff

Gomes, Hernani Ricardo Faim

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements published by the defendant in The Citizen newspaper were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the publication amounted to wrongful conduct under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's defence of fair comment and public interest is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements published by the defendant were defamatory and wrongful. The defendant's absence and failure to contest the facts meant the plaintiff's evidence was uncontested. The publication, though limited to the Portuguese community in Johannesburg, had a severe impact on the plaintiff's business and social standing. The court rejected the defence of fair comment and public interest, finding that the statements went beyond permissible criticism and amounted to an attack on the plaintiff's integrity. Considering the reluctance of South African courts to award excessive damages for defamation, the court determined that R200,000.00 was an appropriate quantum for the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant is ordered to pay damages for defamation.

Orders

  • The First Defendant is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of R200,000.00.
  • Interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum from the date of service of summons to the date of final payment, both dates inclusive.