Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (20117/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 69 (11 June 2018)

Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (20117/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 69 (11 June 2018)

The court found that the statement published by the first respondent, that Mountain Oaks Winery was 'no longer organic', was factually incorrect and constituted a misrepresentation. The applicants had provided sufficient evidence of organic certification for their wines up to the 2010 vintage, and EU regulations did not render such wines non-organic after the regulatory change in 2012. The publication of the statement was injurious to the applicants' reputation and business interests, amounting to unlawful competition. The requirements for a final interdict were met: a clear right existed, injury had been committed or was reasonably apprehended, and no satisfactory alternative remedy was...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Eikenbosch Farm (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marion Smith; Respondent: Elgin Ridge Wines
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2018
Case Number
20117/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application succeeded. Final interdict granted with costs.
Judges
N P Boqwana
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Injurious Falsehood, Retraction and Apology, Organic Certification, Final Interdict
Commercial and Corporate Delict Unlawful Competition Injurious Falsehood Retraction and Apology Organic Certification Final Interdict

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Eikenbosch Farm (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Marion Smith

Respondent

Elgin Ridge Wines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement published by the first respondent that Mountain Oaks Winery was 'no longer organic' was factually correct at the time of publication.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a retraction and publication of the correct facts regarding their organic certification.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statement published by the first respondent, that Mountain Oaks Winery was 'no longer organic', was factually incorrect and constituted a misrepresentation. The applicants had provided sufficient evidence of organic certification for their wines up to the 2010 vintage, and EU regulations did not render such wines non-organic after the regulatory change in 2012. The publication of the statement was injurious to the applicants' reputation and business interests, amounting to unlawful competition. The requirements for a final interdict were met: a clear right existed, injury had been committed or was reasonably apprehended, and no satisfactory alternative remedy was...

Court Disposition

Application succeeded. Final interdict granted with costs.

Orders

  • The application succeeds with costs.
  • The first respondent is ordered, within ten business days of the date of this order, to cause to be published on the home page and on the page entitled 'Organic Wine Producers' of the website (http://biodynamicorganicwine.co.za) and simultaneously to submit to SAWIS for circulation to all its members, the specified...