Smalle and Another v Southern Palace Investments 440 (Pty) Limited and Another (121/2016) [2016] ZASCA 189 (1 December 2016)

Smalle and Another v Southern Palace Investments 440 (Pty) Limited and Another (121/2016) [2016] ZASCA 189 (1 December 2016)

The respondents failed to plead and prove special circumstances necessary to rely on innuendo. The statements in the media release and newspaper article, when read objectively, were presented as allegations and not assertions of fact. The use of terms such as 'allegedly' and references to ongoing investigations indicated that the matters were under inquiry, not established as fact. The reasonable reader would not interpret the statements as imputing guilt or criminal conduct. The respondents did not discharge the onus to prove that the statements were defamatory of them, either in their primary or secondary meaning. Consequently, the appeal was upheld and the claims for defamation dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 189
Parties
Appellant: Jacques Smalle; Appellant: Heidi Lee Smith; Respondent: Southern Palace Investments 440 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Soren Burkal Nielsen
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2016
Case Number
121/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Leach, Tshiqi, Pillay, Mathopo, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Defamation, Pleading of Innuendo, Burden of Proof, Fair Comment, Public Benefit
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Pleading of Innuendo Burden of Proof Fair Comment Public Benefit

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Smalle

Appellant

Heidi Lee Smith

Appellant

Southern Palace Investments 440 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Soren Burkal Nielsen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in the media release and newspaper article were defamatory of the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents pleaded and proved special circumstances to rely on innuendo.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents established a defamatory meaning in the published statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to plead and prove special circumstances necessary to rely on innuendo. The statements in the media release and newspaper article, when read objectively, were presented as allegations and not assertions of fact. The use of terms such as 'allegedly' and references to ongoing investigations indicated that the matters were under inquiry, not established as fact. The reasonable reader would not interpret the statements as imputing guilt or criminal conduct. The respondents did not discharge the onus to prove that the statements were defamatory of them, either in their primary or secondary meaning. Consequently, the appeal was upheld and the claims for defamation dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs.'