Flentov v Trappler and Others (16925/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 18 (6 February 2023)

Flentov v Trappler and Others (16925/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 18 (6 February 2023)

The court found that paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim are relevant and not scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant. These paragraphs provide necessary historical context to the alleged acts of defamation and are pivotal to the plaintiff's claim. The first defendant himself disclosed the relevant facts in his affidavit for a protection order, and the allegations are likely to be admissible at trial. The court held that pleading history is permissible and that the impugned paragraphs clarify the chronology of events leading to the alleged defamatory statements. The application to strike out was dismissed as no prejudice to the first defendant was established, and the...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Flentov; Defendant: Gary Neil Trappler; Defendant: Denis Leslie Dyason; Defendant: Sean Crookson; Defendant: Paul S Jacobson
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2023
Case Number
16925/2021
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Paragraphs 6 to 10 of Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(2)(a)
Outcome
Application to strike out paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lekhuleni
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Rule 23 Application, Relevance of Evidence, Defamation History
Civil Procedure Striking Out Pleadings Rule 23 Application Relevance of Evidence Defamation History

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Flentov

Plaintiff

Gary Neil Trappler

Defendant

Denis Leslie Dyason

Defendant

Sean Crookson

Defendant

Paul S Jacobson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Paragraphs 6 to 10 of Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(2)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim are scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant and should be struck out under Rule 23(2)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the impugned paragraphs prejudice the first defendant in the conduct of his defence.
  3. 3 Whether the allegations in paragraphs 6 to 10 are relevant to the plaintiff's claim for defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim are relevant and not scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant. These paragraphs provide necessary historical context to the alleged acts of defamation and are pivotal to the plaintiff's claim. The first defendant himself disclosed the relevant facts in his affidavit for a protection order, and the allegations are likely to be admissible at trial. The court held that pleading history is permissible and that the impugned paragraphs clarify the chronology of events leading to the alleged defamatory statements. The application to strike out was dismissed as no prejudice to the first defendant was established, and the...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The first defendant’s application to strike out paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaintiff’s particulars of claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of counsel.