Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 135 (7 November 2017)

Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 135 (7 November 2017)

The court held that discovery in defamation actions is governed by a broad test of relevance, sourced in the issues raised on the pleadings. While the defendants are not required to set out all sources relied upon for the published articles, their defence of fair comment and reasonable publication makes the record of the plaintiff's liquidation and sequestration applications relevant. The request for discovery is not a fishing expedition, provided it is limited to the period prior to publication (July 2012 to July 2014). Statements of account are discoverable, but the plaintiff may redact privileged portions. Counsel's accounts are excluded from discovery as they are irrelevant and...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 135
Parties
Plaintiff: Leonard Charles Katz; Defendant: Martin Sylvester Welz; Defendant: Chaucer Publications (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Case Number
22440/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Discovery Application in Defamation Action
Outcome
Application granted in part; plaintiff ordered to comply with limited discovery.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Defamation, Discovery, Privilege, Reasonable Publication, Fair Comment, Fee Notes
Civil Procedure Delict Commercial and Corporate Defamation Discovery Privilege Reasonable Publication Fair Comment +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Charles Katz

Plaintiff

Martin Sylvester Welz

Defendant

Chaucer Publications (Proprietary) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Discovery Application in Defamation Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents sought in discovery are relevant to the issues in the defamation action.
  2. 2 Whether the request for discovery constitutes a fishing expedition.
  3. 3 Whether statements of account are privileged and may be redacted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that discovery in defamation actions is governed by a broad test of relevance, sourced in the issues raised on the pleadings. While the defendants are not required to set out all sources relied upon for the published articles, their defence of fair comment and reasonable publication makes the record of the plaintiff's liquidation and sequestration applications relevant. The request for discovery is not a fishing expedition, provided it is limited to the period prior to publication (July 2012 to July 2014). Statements of account are discoverable, but the plaintiff may redact privileged portions. Counsel's accounts are excluded from discovery as they are irrelevant and...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; plaintiff ordered to comply with limited discovery.

Orders

  • Plaintiff is directed to comply with second defendant's request for discovery in terms of Rule 35(3) dated 11 August 2016 within 30 days, limited to the period July 2012 to July 2014.
  • Plaintiff must discover details of all liquidation and sequestration applications brought by and on behalf of the plaintiff and/or lawyers working under his supervision at Edward Nathan and Sonnenbergs in all South African High Court Divisions for July 2012 to July 2014, including case numbers, names of parties,...