Three separate publications defamatory of the first plaintiff made by the first defendant to employees of the local council - extent of publication - whether imputations conveyed - natural and ordinary meaning of the pleaded words - claims by other plaintiffs against first defendant compromised - claims by all plaintiffs against second and third defendants compromised.
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - GENERAL DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT
Factors relevant to assessment of aggravated compensatory damages, whether presumption that defamatory publication has caused damage - mitigation - relevance of late apology - relevance of the first plaintiff having received or agreed to receive compensation from other defendants for the resolution of claims against them - need for an award of damages to bear rational relationship to the harm suffered by the first plaintiff.
EVIDENCE
Admissibility of terms of settlement between the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants - whether the terms of the Deed of Settlement between the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants entered into on a confidential basis - claims made by plaintiffs against the second and third defendants included additional claims to that claimed as against the first defendant - whether in public interest to preserve confidentiality to promote private compromise - the terms relevant to assessment under s 36 of the Defamation Act, 2005, (SA).
Action for defamation - in the subject proceedings, commenced on 24 September 2014 the first, second and third plaintiffs sought relief including damages and injunctive relief against three named defendants pursuant to various causes of action against them - the action brought against the second and third defendants was compromised in August 2015 - trial proceeded solely against the first defendant - during the trial the second and third plaintiffs resolved their claims against the first defendant upon terms including an undertaking by him - the action ultimately proceeded as an assessment of damages suffered by the first plaintiff against the first defendant - the first defendant admitted making three separate publications defamatory of the first plaintiff to employees of the local council, and that the first of those publications in September 2013 was republished to other employees of the council at or about that time - the first plaintiff was at all relevant times a registered conveyancer - plaintiff's business as a property development consultant included dealing with local council officers on behalf of developers - the first defendant's admitted defamatory statements included imputations that the first plaintiff was corrupt; that he bribed officers of the local council; that he engaged in criminal activity and that he was a person without integrity - whether the statements damaged the first plaintiff in his profession, trade or calling - whether the first plaintiff is entitled to damages to compensate him for the harm sustained by him - whether the first plaintiff is entitled to…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Pinksterboer v Coumi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Pinksterboer v Coumi [2018] SADC 25
Case
[2018] SADC 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Pinksterboer v Coumi involved a defamation case where the plaintiffs, including the first plaintiff, alleged defamatory statements made by the first defendant to employees of a local council. The second and third defendants were also named, but their claims were compromised. The court had to determine whether the publications were defamatory and the extent of the publication, as well as the imputations conveyed by the words used. The plaintiffs argued that the words had a natural and ordinary meaning that was defamatory.
The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the defamatory words and whether they conveyed the imputations claimed. The court also needed to assess the aggravated compensatory damages for the first plaintiff, considering factors such as the presumption of damage caused by the defamatory publication, the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, and the relevance of a late apology. The court had to consider whether the award of damages should bear a rational relationship to the harm suffered by the first plaintiff, taking into account the compensation received from other defendants.
The court found that the publications were indeed defamatory and conveyed the imputations as claimed. In assessing the damages, the court considered the factors relevant to the award of aggravated compensatory damages, including the presumption of harm, mitigation, and the relevance of the apology and prior compensation. The court determined that the award of damages needed to reflect the actual harm suffered by the first plaintiff, and ordered the first defendant to pay damages to the first plaintiff, while dismissing the claims against the second and third defendants due to the compromises made.