Goodall v Hoogendoorn Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1926 AD 11

Goodall Appellant v Hoogendoorn Ltd Respondent
1926 AD 11

1926 AD p11

Citation	1926 AD 11
Court	Appellate Division, Bloemfontein
Judge	Innes CJ, Solomon JA, De Villiers JA, Kotzé JA and Wessels JA
Heard	October 2, 1925
Judgment	October 2, 1925

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Defamation — Company — Statements injuring a director and shareholder — Actio injuriarum — Pleading — Exception.

Headnote : Kopnota

Defendant, a director and shareholder of the G-company, against whom damages for defamation were claimed by the H company, in reconvention after claiming damages for certain defamatory statements made by plaintiff against him personally, stated that plaintiff "maliciously and with intent to injure defendant's reputation in his said official capacity as managing director, and also in his private capacity as the shareholder holding a controlling interest in the G company. . . caused and directed its agents to publish of and concerning defendant in his several capacities" certain defamatory words.

1926 AD p12

Held, on exception taken, that the portion of the claims referring to the injury done to defendant as a director and shareholder of the G company was embarrassing and should be struck out.

Defendant further "as the largest shareholder" claimed damages for false representations made as to the business of the G company which had the effect of depriving the company of its clients.

Held, that the cause of action alleged was not defamation but an injuria done merely to the G company, for which the company, and not an individual shareholder, was entitled to sue.

The decision of the Cape Provincial Division in Goodall v Hoogendoorn Ltd confirmed.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision of the Cape Provincial Division (SEARLE, J.P and BENJAMIN, J.)

The facts appear from the following reasons of SEARLE, J.P.

SEARLE, J.P.: An exception in this case is taken by the plaintiff in convention in the action to certain paragraphs in the claim in reconvention set up by the defendant. The plaintiff company sued for damages for defamation, alleging that its business had been injured by certain defamatory statements that were made. The defendant replied to that and claimed damages in reconvention for certain defamatory statements made against himself personally which are set out in the first part of the claim in reconvention, that is in paragraph 7, then in paragraph 8 the claim in reconvention goes on to set out certain times and places, as to which particulars are given, when and where the plaintiff, that is the defendant in reconvention, maliciously and with intent to injure the defendant's (now plaintiff in reconvention) reputation in his official capacity as managing director, and also in his private and individual capacity as the shareholder holding a controlling interest in a certain company style, Goodall and Williams Assurance, Ltd., caused and directed its agents to publish of and concerning defendant (now plaintiff) in his several capacities the false, malicious and defamatory words therein set out, and the plaintiff, it is alleged, has caused thereby the defendant loss and damage in the sum of £1,000. Then the particulars are given, and these particulars appear to me to relate almost entirely to statements made with regard to the manner in which the company - of which the defendant in convention is the managing director - had carried on its business. As far as I can see the only statements not referring to the way in which the company carried on its business are those also contained in paragraph 7, and for which damages are claimed in that paragraph. The rest of these particulars appear to me to relate to matters for which the company may have a claim for damages, but that company is not before the Court.

Then paragraph 9 goes on to say that the...