Smith v Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another (1003/2018) [2019] ZASCA 123 (26 September 2019)

Smith v Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another (1003/2018) [2019] ZASCA 123 (26 September 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondents failed to prove the essential elements of injurious falsehood. The appellant's statement that Mountain Oaks Winery was no longer organic was not false, given the change in EU standards after 1 August 2012 and the lack of certification for organic wine production at the relevant time. The respondents did not specifically allege or prove that the appellant knew the representation was false, nor did they prove any damages suffered as a result of the publication. The court concluded that the requirements for injurious falsehood were not met and that the order of the court a quo granting an interdict was erroneous and must be set aside.

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 123
Parties
Appellant: Marion Smith; Respondent: Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eikenbosch Farm (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
1003/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Navsa, Swain, Zondi, Mokgohloa, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Unlawful Competition, Defamation, Organic Certification, Reputation Protection
Commercial and Corporate Delict Injurious Falsehood Unlawful Competition Defamation Organic Certification Reputation Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Smith

Appellant

Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Eikenbosch Farm (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant made a false representation to others concerning the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant knew that the representation was false.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents suffered damages as a result of the representation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondents failed to prove the essential elements of injurious falsehood. The appellant's statement that Mountain Oaks Winery was no longer organic was not false, given the change in EU standards after 1 August 2012 and the lack of certification for organic wine production at the relevant time. The respondents did not specifically allege or prove that the appellant knew the representation was false, nor did they prove any damages suffered as a result of the publication. The court concluded that the requirements for injurious falsehood were not met and that the order of the court a quo granting an interdict was erroneous and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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