LCR4805
Assignment 1
Unique No:
Due 12 August 2025
, Question 1
(a) Mary’s Liability for Defamation (10 Marks)
Under South African law, defamation is defined as the unlawful and intentional
publication of a statement that injures another person’s reputation in the eyes of the
community. For a defamation claim to succeed, five elements must be proven
(Neethling et al., 2020):
1. Publication
Mary posted her allegations on John’s public Facebook wall, where it was
accessible to third parties. The post attracted responses from other users,
indicating that it was viewed by members of the public. This satisfies the
requirement that the defamatory statement must be published to at least one
person other than the plaintiff (Burchell, 2021).
2. Defamatory Nature
Mary accused John of being a "thief and fraudster." These are serious
allegations that could severely harm John’s personal and professional
reputation, especially considering his position in the financial sector, where
trustworthiness is paramount. In Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC), the court
confirmed that statements which lower a person’s esteem in the eyes of others
are defamatory. Mary's remarks clearly fall into this category.
3. Identification
John was specifically named in the post, leaving no ambiguity as to whom the
statement referred. The requirement that the defamatory statement must refer to
the plaintiff is therefore met.
4. Wrongfulness
In South African defamation law, wrongfulness is presumed once the plaintiff
proves publication and that the statement is defamatory. The burden then shifts
to the defendant to prove a valid defence. Since Mary has not raised a defence
at this stage, the presumption of wrongfulness stands (Neethling et al., 2020).
Assignment 1
Unique No:
Due 12 August 2025
, Question 1
(a) Mary’s Liability for Defamation (10 Marks)
Under South African law, defamation is defined as the unlawful and intentional
publication of a statement that injures another person’s reputation in the eyes of the
community. For a defamation claim to succeed, five elements must be proven
(Neethling et al., 2020):
1. Publication
Mary posted her allegations on John’s public Facebook wall, where it was
accessible to third parties. The post attracted responses from other users,
indicating that it was viewed by members of the public. This satisfies the
requirement that the defamatory statement must be published to at least one
person other than the plaintiff (Burchell, 2021).
2. Defamatory Nature
Mary accused John of being a "thief and fraudster." These are serious
allegations that could severely harm John’s personal and professional
reputation, especially considering his position in the financial sector, where
trustworthiness is paramount. In Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC), the court
confirmed that statements which lower a person’s esteem in the eyes of others
are defamatory. Mary's remarks clearly fall into this category.
3. Identification
John was specifically named in the post, leaving no ambiguity as to whom the
statement referred. The requirement that the defamatory statement must refer to
the plaintiff is therefore met.
4. Wrongfulness
In South African defamation law, wrongfulness is presumed once the plaintiff
proves publication and that the statement is defamatory. The burden then shifts
to the defendant to prove a valid defence. Since Mary has not raised a defence
at this stage, the presumption of wrongfulness stands (Neethling et al., 2020).
