Roux v Powell (17499/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 132 (4 October 2019)

Roux v Powell (17499/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 132 (4 October 2019)

The court found that, considering the statements in their full context and applying the concept of illocutionary force, the posts published by the defendant were defamatory of the plaintiff in their primary sense. The first post, prominently displayed and promoted via tags, became outdated and incorrect after the appeal exonerated the plaintiff, yet the defendant refused to remove it despite demand and factual inaccuracy. The court held that a reasonable person reading that a professional was found guilty of unprofessional conduct, even with an appeal pending, would have their estimation of that person lowered. The particulars of claim were found to be sufficiently clear, and the alleged...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 132
Parties
Plaintiff: Lynette Mary Roux; Defendant: Oliver Michael Powell
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2019
Case Number
17499/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed with costs; defendant directed to plead within 20 days.
Judges
Le Grange
Legal Topics
Defamation, Wrongful Publication, Professional Reputation, Internet Publication
Delict Defamation Wrongful Publication Professional Reputation Internet Publication

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynette Mary Roux

Plaintiff

Oliver Michael Powell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first internet post is capable of being interpreted as defamatory as alleged by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing due to the alleged outdated nature of the post.
  3. 3 Whether the second post is defamatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, considering the statements in their full context and applying the concept of illocutionary force, the posts published by the defendant were defamatory of the plaintiff in their primary sense. The first post, prominently displayed and promoted via tags, became outdated and incorrect after the appeal exonerated the plaintiff, yet the defendant refused to remove it despite demand and factual inaccuracy. The court held that a reasonable person reading that a professional was found guilty of unprofessional conduct, even with an appeal pending, would have their estimation of that person lowered. The particulars of claim were found to be sufficiently clear, and the alleged...

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed with costs; defendant directed to plead within 20 days.

Orders

  • The exceptions are dismissed with costs.
  • The defendant is directed to plead within 20 days after the date of this order to the plaintiff's particulars of claim.