Meyer v Basset (5260/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 27 (26 February 2019)

Meyer v Basset (5260/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 27 (26 February 2019)

The court found that the defendant's statements about the plaintiff were clearly defamatory, both in terms of sexual morality and professional ethics, and were made maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. The publication, while limited to a small group, was nonetheless serious and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant's subsequent apologies, though full and unreserved, did not mitigate the harm caused, especially as they were not circulated to those present at the gathering. The court considered the plaintiff's strong reputation, the gravity of the statements, and the limited extent of publication in determining quantum. The court rejected arguments for...

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 27
Parties
Plaintiff: Isobel Meyer; Defendant: Peter Basset
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2019
Case Number
5260/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay damages and costs.
Judges
M Roberson
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages Quantum, Professional Ethics, Republication Liability
Delict Defamation Damages Quantum Professional Ethics Republication 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isobel Meyer

Plaintiff

Peter Basset

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendant about the plaintiff were defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct was wrongful and intentional.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the defamation committed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's statements about the plaintiff were clearly defamatory, both in terms of sexual morality and professional ethics, and were made maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. The publication, while limited to a small group, was nonetheless serious and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant's subsequent apologies, though full and unreserved, did not mitigate the harm caused, especially as they were not circulated to those present at the gathering. The court considered the plaintiff's strong reputation, the gravity of the statements, and the limited extent of publication in determining quantum. The court rejected arguments for...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff R70,000.00.
  • Interest on R70,000.00 at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of payment.