Jansen v Naylor and Another [2005] ZAGPHC 378; 21292/02 (24 August 2005)

Jansen v Naylor and Another [2005] ZAGPHC 378; 21292/02 (24 August 2005)

The court held that, although the defendants' Rule 34 tender exceeded the amount ultimately awarded, the general rule regarding costs after a tender does not automatically apply in defamation actions. In such cases, the quantum is less significant than the vindication of reputation. The tender made by the defendants contained no admission of liability or apology, which are central to the plaintiff's purpose in pursuing the action. The plaintiff was justified in persisting with the litigation to clear his name. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 34(12) and declined to vary the original costs order, emphasizing the unique nature of defamation proceedings and the importance of...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 378
Parties
Plaintiff: Pieter Johan Jansen; Defendant: Michael Naylor; Defendant: Atomaer (RSA) (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2005
Case Number
21292/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Vary Costs Order After Appeal
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order is refused; the original costs order stands.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Defamation, Costs Award, Rule 34 Application, Judicial Discretion, Solatium, Apology in Defamation
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Costs Award Rule 34 Application Judicial Discretion Solatium Apology in Defamation

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Johan Jansen

Plaintiff

Michael Naylor

Defendant

Atomaer (RSA) (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Vary Costs Order After Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made on 31 October 2003 should be varied in light of the defendants' Rule 34 tender.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an apology or admission of liability in the tender affects the exercise of judicial discretion on costs in a defamation action.
  3. 3 Whether the general rule regarding costs after a tender applies in defamation matters where vindication of reputation is central.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the defendants' Rule 34 tender exceeded the amount ultimately awarded, the general rule regarding costs after a tender does not automatically apply in defamation actions. In such cases, the quantum is less significant than the vindication of reputation. The tender made by the defendants contained no admission of liability or apology, which are central to the plaintiff's purpose in pursuing the action. The plaintiff was justified in persisting with the litigation to clear his name. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 34(12) and declined to vary the original costs order, emphasizing the unique nature of defamation proceedings and the importance of...

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order is refused; the original costs order stands.

Orders

  • There is no order varying the costs order which I made in this matter on 31 October 2003.