Wilson v Basson

Wilson v Basson involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Wilson, and the defendant, Basson. The plaintiff initially brought an action against the defendant and later sought to strike out part of a cross-claim, which the plaintiff no longer wished to pursue. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs after abandoning her strike-out motion and whether either party had acted unreasonably or if one party was certain to succeed. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff could amend her statement of claim to include new allegations of oral defamation and whether the proposed amendments sufficiently identified the defamatory words and the relevant parties.

The court found that the plaintiff had not acted unreasonably in abandoning her strike-out motion as both parties had reached a consensus on the outcome of the motion. The court further held that costs should lie where they fall and that neither party had acted unreasonably or was certain to succeed. Regarding the amendment of the statement of claim, the court found that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently identify the defamatory words, the occasions on which they were said, or the persons responsible for them. The court ruled that the amendments should not be allowed as they did not meet the necessary standards for clarity and specificity.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to strike out part of the cross-claim without costs to either party. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend her statement of claim to include the new allegations of oral defamation. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the motion to amend the statement of claim.