Waldis and Another v Van Ulmenstein (7513/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 201; 2017 (4) SA 503 (WCC) (21 November 2016)

Waldis and Another v Van Ulmenstein (7513/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 201; 2017 (4) SA 503 (WCC) (21 November 2016)

The court found that while the respondent's blog post addressed matters of public interest, specifically the labelling and sugar content of chocolates marketed as diabetically friendly, not all statements in the article were protected by the defences of truth, public interest, or fair comment. The applicants failed to provide clear evidence disproving the core allegations, and consumer journalism on such issues is generally protected. However, two specific sentences in the blog post were found to have illocutionary force and constituted defamatory assertions not justified by the available evidence. The court held that only these passages should be removed, as the remainder of the article...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 201
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Martin Waldis and Another; Respondent: Christine Irene Freiia Van Ulmenstein
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2016
Case Number
7513/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Urgent Proceedings
Outcome
Partially granted: The application for a final interdict succeeds only in respect of two specific defamatory sentences, which must be removed from the respondent's blog post. Costs of the wasted hearing on 12 May 2016 are awarded to the respondent; no further costs are awarded.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Fair Comment, Public Interest, Consumer Journalism
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Final Interdict Freedom of Expression Fair Comment Public Interest Consumer Journalism

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

Parties

Daniel Martin Waldis and Another

Applicant

Christine Irene Freiia Van Ulmenstein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Urgent Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's blog post contained defamatory statements about the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth, public interest, and fair comment are available to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict requiring removal of the offending statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondent's blog post addressed matters of public interest, specifically the labelling and sugar content of chocolates marketed as diabetically friendly, not all statements in the article were protected by the defences of truth, public interest, or fair comment. The applicants failed to provide clear evidence disproving the core allegations, and consumer journalism on such issues is generally protected. However, two specific sentences in the blog post were found to have illocutionary force and constituted defamatory assertions not justified by the available evidence. The court held that only these passages should be removed, as the remainder of the article...

Court Disposition

Partially granted: The application for a final interdict succeeds only in respect of two specific defamatory sentences, which must be removed from the respondent's blog post. Costs of the wasted hearing on 12 May 2016 are awarded to the respondent; no further costs are awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to remove the following sentences from the article titled 'Daniel Walders Le Chocolatier chocolate claims are fraudulent and life threatening' from the website www.whalecottage.com or any other website or social media platform: (1) 'his claims on the Le Chocolatier chocolate slab range have...
  • The respondent is awarded the costs of the wasted hearing on 12 May 2016.