LCR4805
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Due 12 August 2025
, QUESTION 1(a): Liability of Mary in a Defamation Claim (10 Marks)
In South African law, defamation is defined as the unlawful and intentional publication of
a statement that injures another person’s reputation (Neethling et al., 2020). For liability
to arise, the following elements must be proven:
1. Publication
o Mary posted the alleged defamatory statement on John’s Facebook wall, a
platform accessible to third parties.
o The post generated numerous negative comments from other users,
meeting the requirement that the statement be communicated to at least
one person other than the complainant (Burchell, 2021).
2. Defamatory Nature of the Statement
o Referring to John as a “thief and fraudster” is inherently damaging to his
reputation, particularly given his role in running an investment company
where integrity and trust are essential.
o In Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC), the Constitutional Court
confirmed that words which lower a person’s standing in the eyes of
reasonable members of society are considered defamatory.
3. Reference to the Plaintiff
o The statement explicitly named John, making it clear that the defamatory
remarks were directed at him.
4. Wrongfulness
o In defamation claims, wrongfulness is presumed unless the defendant can
establish a valid legal defence (Neethling et al., 2020). No such defence
appears evident in this scenario.
5. Fault (Intention)
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Due 12 August 2025
, QUESTION 1(a): Liability of Mary in a Defamation Claim (10 Marks)
In South African law, defamation is defined as the unlawful and intentional publication of
a statement that injures another person’s reputation (Neethling et al., 2020). For liability
to arise, the following elements must be proven:
1. Publication
o Mary posted the alleged defamatory statement on John’s Facebook wall, a
platform accessible to third parties.
o The post generated numerous negative comments from other users,
meeting the requirement that the statement be communicated to at least
one person other than the complainant (Burchell, 2021).
2. Defamatory Nature of the Statement
o Referring to John as a “thief and fraudster” is inherently damaging to his
reputation, particularly given his role in running an investment company
where integrity and trust are essential.
o In Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC), the Constitutional Court
confirmed that words which lower a person’s standing in the eyes of
reasonable members of society are considered defamatory.
3. Reference to the Plaintiff
o The statement explicitly named John, making it clear that the defamatory
remarks were directed at him.
4. Wrongfulness
o In defamation claims, wrongfulness is presumed unless the defendant can
establish a valid legal defence (Neethling et al., 2020). No such defence
appears evident in this scenario.
5. Fault (Intention)
