LRB and Others v Leatherby (116/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 192 (7 March 2018)

LRB and Others v Leatherby (116/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 192 (7 March 2018)

The court found that the respondent admitted to creating and publishing most of the material, which was objectively defamatory and intended to injure the applicants' dignity and reputation. The respondent failed to establish any lawful justification, such as fair comment, truth, or public interest, and his conduct evidenced a personal vendetta following the termination of his employment. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicants had a clear right, injury was committed and reasonably apprehended, and no adequate alternative remedy existed. The damages claim, being illiquid and factually disputed, was referred to trial for quantification. On the contempt application,...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 192
Parties
Applicant: LRB; Applicant: GG; Applicant: I (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Owen Benjamin Leatherby
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2018
Case Number
116/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Application for Final Interdict, Contempt, and Damages Referral
Outcome
Final interdict granted; respondent found to have defamed applicants; damages claim referred to trial; respondent found in contempt and cautioned; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
A De Wet
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Defamation, Civil Contempt, Damages Quantification, Motion Vs Action Proceedings
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Defamation Civil Contempt Damages Quantification Motion Vs Action Proceedings

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

Parties

LRB

Applicant

GG

Applicant

I (PTY) LTD

Applicant

Owen Benjamin Leatherby

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Application for Final Interdict, Contempt, and Damages Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict based on the papers.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted defamation of the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claim for defamation can be determined on motion or should be referred to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent admitted to creating and publishing most of the material, which was objectively defamatory and intended to injure the applicants' dignity and reputation. The respondent failed to establish any lawful justification, such as fair comment, truth, or public interest, and his conduct evidenced a personal vendetta following the termination of his employment. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicants had a clear right, injury was committed and reasonably apprehended, and no adequate alternative remedy existed. The damages claim, being illiquid and factually disputed, was referred to trial for quantification. On the contempt application,...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted; respondent found to have defamed applicants; damages claim referred to trial; respondent found in contempt and cautioned; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • A final interdict is granted in the terms of paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 and 2.6 to 2.8 (excluding 2.4 and 2.5) of the Rule nisi granted on 10 January 2017.
  • Respondent is found to have defamed applicants.