Webster v Mannion (15277/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 639 (20 August 2014)

Webster v Mannion (15277/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 639 (20 August 2014)

The court found that the respondent's published apology and retraction substantially complied with the interim relief sought by the applicant, rendering confirmation of the rule nisi unnecessary. However, the respondent's failure to tender costs and delay in publishing the apology justified a punitive costs order. The applicant was substantially successful and entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel, due to the public nature of the dispute and the hardship caused by the respondent's defamatory statements.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 639
Parties
Applicant: Colin Andrew Webster; Respondent: Gavin Mannion
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Case Number
15277/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Interim Interdict and Costs
Outcome
The rule nisi is discharged. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Bredenkamp
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Defamation, Social Media Publication, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Delict Interim Interdict Defamation Social Media Publication Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Andrew Webster

Applicant

Gavin Mannion

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Interim Interdict and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to remove defamatory content from various social media platforms pending final adjudication.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be interdicted from publishing further defamatory statements about the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's apology and retraction constitute substantial compliance with the interim relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's published apology and retraction substantially complied with the interim relief sought by the applicant, rendering confirmation of the rule nisi unnecessary. However, the respondent's failure to tender costs and delay in publishing the apology justified a punitive costs order. The applicant was substantially successful and entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel, due to the public nature of the dispute and the hardship caused by the respondent's defamatory statements.

Court Disposition

The rule nisi is discharged. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application on the scale of attorney and client, including reserved costs and costs of two counsel.