Mostert and Another v Nash and Others (12120/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 187 (28 July 2020)

Mostert and Another v Nash and Others (12120/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 187 (28 July 2020)

The court found that the respondents' conduct, including the publication of the forensic report and related correspondence, amounted to false and defamatory statements against the applicants, made not in the public interest but to serve Nash's personal interests in the Power Pack action. The respondents failed to discharge the onus to rebut the presumptions of wrongfulness and intention. The harm to the applicants, including interference with the liquidation process and intimidation of witnesses, was manifest and ongoing. The requirements for interdictory relief, both interim and final, were met. The respondents' reliance on freedom of expression was rejected, as they were not members of...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 187
Parties
Applicant: Antony Louis Mostert; Applicant: Power Pack Pension Fund (in liquidation) (represented by Antony Louis Mostert N.O.); Respondent: Simon John Nash; Respondent: Paul Robert O'Sullivan; Respondent: Sarah-Jane Trent; Respondent: Paul O'Sullivan & Associates Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Old Mutual Life Insurance Company (South Africa) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Case Number
12120/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Final Determination of Defamation and Related Proceedings
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining the first to fourth respondents from publishing or disseminating false defamatory allegations and the forensic report, pending final determination of damages and a final interdict. Costs awarded against the first to fourth respondents.
Judges
Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Liquidation Proceedings, Witness Intimidation, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Defamation Freedom of Expression Liquidation Proceedings Witness Intimidation Res Judicata

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Louis Mostert

Applicant

Power Pack Pension Fund (in liquidation) (represented by Antony Louis Mostert N.O.)

Applicant

Simon John Nash

Respondent

Paul Robert O'Sullivan

Respondent

Sarah-Jane Trent

Respondent

Paul O'Sullivan & Associates Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Old Mutual Life Insurance Company (South Africa) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Final Determination of Defamation and Related Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to defamation of the applicants and interference in the administration of the second applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents established a defence excluding wrongfulness or intention.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants met the requirements for interdictory relief, both interim and final.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' conduct, including the publication of the forensic report and related correspondence, amounted to false and defamatory statements against the applicants, made not in the public interest but to serve Nash's personal interests in the Power Pack action. The respondents failed to discharge the onus to rebut the presumptions of wrongfulness and intention. The harm to the applicants, including interference with the liquidation process and intimidation of witnesses, was manifest and ongoing. The requirements for interdictory relief, both interim and final, were met. The respondents' reliance on freedom of expression was rejected, as they were not members of...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining the first to fourth respondents from publishing or disseminating false defamatory allegations and the forensic report, pending final determination of damages and a final interdict. Costs awarded against the first to fourth respondents.

Orders

  • An interim interdict restraining the first to fourth respondents from publishing or disseminating any false defamatory allegations regarding the applicants or their associates.
  • An interim interdict restraining the first to fourth respondents from publishing or disseminating the forensic report dated 30 March 2019 or any variations, updates, amendments, and related correspondence between the second and fifth respondents.