Neethling v Du Preez and Others, Neethling v Weekly Mail and Others (184/91, 401/91) [1994] ZASCA 133; 1995 (1) SA 292 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 441 (A) (27 September 1994)

Neethling v Du Preez and Others, Neethling v Weekly Mail and Others (184/91, 401/91) [1994] ZASCA 133; 1995 (1) SA 292 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 441 (A) (27 September 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, while it is legally competent for the appellate court to itself assess damages in circumstances where the trial court has non-suited the plaintiff on the merits, the general rule remains that the trial court is the appropriate forum for such assessment, particularly in defamation cases involving sentimental loss. The court found that no special circumstances existed to justify a departure from this rule, especially in light of the respondents' objection to the appellate court determining damages. The court rejected the appellant's concerns regarding the trial judge's prior adverse findings, holding that the trial judge would objectively apply the...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 133
Parties
Appellant: Lothar Paul Neethling; Respondent: Max Du Preez; Respondent: Caxton Limited; Respondent: Jacques Pauw; Respondent: The Weekly Mail; Respondent: WM Publications (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Gavin Evans
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 1994
Case Number
184/91, 401/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Remittal for Assessment of Damages After Successful Appeal on Merits
Outcome
Appeal succeeded on the merits; matter remitted to the trial court for assessment of damages.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Nestadt, Nienaber, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Defamation, Justification, Qualified Privilege, Assessment of Damages, Remittal, Appellate Jurisdiction
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Justification Qualified Privilege Assessment of Damages Remittal Appellate Jurisdiction

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lothar Paul Neethling

Appellant

Max Du Preez

Respondent

Caxton Limited

Respondent

Jacques Pauw

Respondent

The Weekly Mail

Respondent

WM Publications (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Gavin Evans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Remittal for Assessment of Damages After Successful Appeal on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal has the competence to itself assess damages after overturning the trial court's finding on the merits.
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to justify the appellate court determining damages rather than remitting to the trial court.
  3. 3 What principles govern the remittal of damages assessment in defamation actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, while it is legally competent for the appellate court to itself assess damages in circumstances where the trial court has non-suited the plaintiff on the merits, the general rule remains that the trial court is the appropriate forum for such assessment, particularly in defamation cases involving sentimental loss. The court found that no special circumstances existed to justify a departure from this rule, especially in light of the respondents' objection to the appellate court determining damages. The court rejected the appellant's concerns regarding the trial judge's prior adverse findings, holding that the trial judge would objectively apply the...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeded on the merits; matter remitted to the trial court for assessment of damages.

Orders

  • The case is remitted to the trial court to assess the appellant's damages and to make an appropriate order for costs in that court.
  • The appellant must pay the costs incurred in the Supreme Court of Appeal subsequent to 2 June 1994, including the costs of two counsel.