Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 Judgment No. D151

Case

[1999] SADC 151

30 November 1999


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 Judgment No. D151 [1999] SADC 151 [1999] SADC 151 30 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 involved a claim for damages for libel brought by Tony Georgeff against SA Telecasters Ltd, operator of Channel 7. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had broadcast defamatory material about him in TV promotions, radio advertisements, and a TV story. The court found that the TV promotions, radio advertisements, and certain parts of the TV story contained defamatory meanings about the plaintiff, but the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action in respect of other parts of the TV story. The court awarded the plaintiff $15,010 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in exemplary damages, for a total of $16,250 plus interest.

The court found that the TV promotions and radio advertisements contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had been an irresponsible father, had deliberately failed to pay reasonable maintenance for his children, and had wrongfully manipulated the child support system to avoid paying proper maintenance. The court also found that parts of the TV story contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequately for his children, had concealed his true earnings to avoid child support obligations, and had committed breaches of his child support obligations. However, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action in respect of other parts of the TV story.

The court found that the defendant had failed to justify most of the defamatory meanings it published about the plaintiff. While the defendant argued that the publications were true or constituted fair comment on matters of public interest, the court found that the publications contained numerous falsehoods and were lacking in bona fides. The court also found that the defendant had acted recklessly and with conscious disregard for the plaintiff's rights in publishing the defamatory material. Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial damages for the actionable libels.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Defamation Law

Legal Concepts

  • Defamation

  • Justification

  • Aggravated Damages

  • Exemplary Damages

  • Trespass to Land

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4

C v L & ORS [2005] SASC 315
Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

0

R v H, ML [2006] SASC 240