Times Media Ltd. and Others v Niselow and Another (195/03) [2004] ZASCA 134; [2005] 1 All SA 567 (SCA) (1 December 2004)

Times Media Ltd. and Others v Niselow and Another (195/03) [2004] ZASCA 134; [2005] 1 All SA 567 (SCA) (1 December 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, having pleaded specific stings or quasi-innuendos, were restricted to those meanings and could not rely on any other defamatory meaning that the article may be capable of bearing. The article was found to be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, namely that the beef stew prepared by the respondents was suspected on reasonable grounds of having caused the poisoning of the children. However, since this meaning was not pleaded, the respondents could not rely on it. The two stings conceded by the appellants—(1) that the food-poisoning incident was the biggest medical disaster Dr Boden had ever seen, and (2) that the food 'smelled awful...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 134
Parties
Appellant: Times Media Limited; Respondent: Barry Niselow
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2004
Case Number
195/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability in Defamation Claim
Outcome
Appeal upheld; claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mpati, Erasmus, Conradie
Legal Topics
Defamation, Justification, Reasonable Publication, Quasi Innuendo, Public Interest
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Defamation Justification Reasonable Publication Quasi Innuendo Public Interest

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Times Media Limited

Appellant

Barry Niselow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability in Defamation Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article and cartoon published by the Sunday Times were defamatory of the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the meanings pleaded by the respondents (quasi-innuendo/stings) were established by the publications.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants could justify the defamatory statements as substantially true or as reasonable publication in the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, having pleaded specific stings or quasi-innuendos, were restricted to those meanings and could not rely on any other defamatory meaning that the article may be capable of bearing. The article was found to be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, namely that the beef stew prepared by the respondents was suspected on reasonable grounds of having caused the poisoning of the children. However, since this meaning was not pleaded, the respondents could not rely on it. The two stings conceded by the appellants—(1) that the food-poisoning incident was the biggest medical disaster Dr Boden had ever seen, and (2) that the food 'smelled awful...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with costs.'