Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 200 (20 October 2016)

Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 200 (20 October 2016)

The court found that the respondent's posts were defamatory, as they alleged fraudulent and dishonest conduct by the applicant and its director, without reliable evidence or personal experience. The respondent failed to prove the truth of the allegations or that they were in the public interest. The posts were not fair comment but statements of fact, and the respondent's conduct was motivated by malice, as evidenced by harassment and threats against the applicant's director. The applicant established a clear right to protection of its reputation, reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence of alternative remedies. The respondent's constitutional right to freedom of expression does not...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 200
Parties
Applicant: Flocutt (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Joachem Eisenberg
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2016
Case Number
3592/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Initial Urgent Proceedings; Opposed and Heard on the Merits
Outcome
Application granted; final interdict issued against the respondent.
Judges
Murray AJ
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Social Media Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Interdict Freedom of Expression Social Media Liability

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

Parties

Flocutt (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Joachem Eisenberg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Initial Urgent Proceedings; Opposed and Heard on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's social media posts about the applicant are defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's posts are justified by truth and public interest or fair comment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict prohibiting further untrue allegations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's posts were defamatory, as they alleged fraudulent and dishonest conduct by the applicant and its director, without reliable evidence or personal experience. The respondent failed to prove the truth of the allegations or that they were in the public interest. The posts were not fair comment but statements of fact, and the respondent's conduct was motivated by malice, as evidenced by harassment and threats against the applicant's director. The applicant established a clear right to protection of its reputation, reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence of alternative remedies. The respondent's constitutional right to freedom of expression does not...

Court Disposition

Application granted; final interdict issued against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to remove all references to the applicant from his Facebook page, Hellopeter.com profile/page, and reportacrime.co.za profile/page.
  • The respondent is prohibited from publishing on any webpage, website, or in any social or printed media forum any untrue allegations regarding the applicant and/or its business practices.