Update (2016-11-08): Added a new section titled “Interviews with President Zuma” with embedded audio recordings of interviews conducted by the Public Protector. The State Capture Report is the culmination of a revealing investigation into various allegations of corruption and irregular actions by prominent politicians and business people. This is the first paragraph of the report’sContinue reading “The State Capture Report downloads, analysis and news”
That the respondent in the latest High Court Facebook defamation case, M v B, was ordered to remove defamatory posts on Facebook isn’t remarkable. What is more interesting about that case is that it reiterates a principle that a court will not step in and proactively block future defamatory posts. The applicant in this case,Continue reading “Facebook defamation is not necessarily illegal”
As you know, the Pretoria High Court granted the media permission to broadcast the upcoming Oscar Pistorius trial but don’t expect to see TV footage of Pistorius or his witnesses giving evidence. Judge President Mlambo has imposed a number of restrictions on the coverage you can expect in the coming weeks. The reasons for these restrictions stem from the considerations Judge Mlambo took into account and how the judge balanced a number of competing rights.
For one thing, you probably won’t see any video of Oscar Pistorius’ or his witnesses’ testimony (although you may hear it on radio). You won’t see close-ups either. This decision is more about upholding rights than it is about the hype.
The recent Isparta v Richter and Another case in the Pretoria High Court expands on an earlier Facebook defamation case in the Johannesburg High Court and addresses a question that most people assume is answered from the start: does the defamatory material relate to the person who claims to be wronged? This case also makes an important point about the kind of compensation successful litigants are likely to receive. It’s not as much as you might expect.
The innocuous looking case of H v W which was handed down in the South Gauteng High Court on 30 January 2013 is anything but. Judge Willis’ 30 page judgment recognises the harm a Facebook post can do to a person’s reputation and throws the weight of the Court behind the person defamed (and who can afford the legal fees).
One of my clients mentioned a story to me during a consultation yesterday involving an advocate who, while being questioned by a Cape High Court judge, swore at the judge and stormed out of court. The story has been pretty widely reported in the local media and, at first glance, appears somewhat amusing. Below isContinue reading “Advocate swears at judge, storms out of court”
I just returned from yet another trip to the High Court to follow up on a few default judgment requests which I filed in April and June 2010. I thought I would share my experiences and try give people not involved in court processes an idea what is or isn’t going on behind the scenesContinue reading “The Johannesburg High Court administration embarrassment”