Wright v De Kauwe [No 2]

In this case, the plaintiff, Wright, brought a defamation claim against De Kauwe, asserting that defamatory material published online about Wright caused him to lose an opportunity to receive directors' fees and share options. The trial court found in favour of Wright and awarded him damages, including special damages for lost fees and options. De Kauwe appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in various aspects of its assessment of liability and damages, as well as in its consideration of costs.

The court examined whether De Kauwe was liable for the defamatory material as a publisher. The court noted that liability for publication in defamation cases depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and found that the trial court's decision was supported by the evidence. The court also considered whether the loss of the opportunity to receive directors' fees and share options was directly caused by the publication of the defamatory material. The court found that the trial court's assessment of the value of the lost opportunity was appropriate, given the evidence presented.

In relation to costs, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in failing to find that Wright's rejection of De Kauwe's Calderbank offers was unreasonable. The court held that the trial judge did not err in this regard, as the evidence supported the finding that Wright's rejection was reasonable. The court also examined whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider whether any reasonable rejection of the Calderbank offers justified an order for Wright to pay De Kauwe's party/party costs from the date of the offer. The court found that the trial judge's failure to make such a finding did not amount to an error. Finally, the court noted the significance of an apology in defamation proceedings and held that an apology may be relevant to the assessment of damages and costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's orders for damages and costs were upheld.