J.W v B.T (2022/022689)
J.W v B.T (2022/022689) [2025] ZAGPJHC 120 (17 February 2025)
The court found that the respondent's undertaking, given via his attorney, was contractually binding. Although the applicant sought a broader undertaking, the facts as a whole indicated acceptance of the original undertaking, particularly as no litigation was launched until the respondent breached it. The respondent's attempt to dissect the correspondence into discrete offers and counteroffers was rejected; the court applied an objective test and concluded that the respondent could not reasonably have believed he was free to defame the applicant after giving the undertaking. On the issue of q…
Source excerpt
- Specific Performance
- Contractual Undertaking
- Defamation
- Qualified Privilege
- Enforceability Of Undertaking