Marion Smith v Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and another

The second respondent owned Eikenbosch farm, an organic farming operation whose wines were produced and distributed by the first respondent under the brand 'Mountain Oaks'. The appellant created and controlled a website launched on 14 August 2017 for certified biodynamic and organic wine producers in South Africa. On the website, the appellant included a table of wine producers' certification status. Under Mountain Oaks Winery, she wrote in bold and red text: "no longer organic". The entry was published for 48 hours before being removed following the respondents' demand. The respondents alleged they had been certified for organic wine production since 2005. The appellant contended that the respondents had not produced wine since 2011, and after EU regulations changed in August 2012, wines not produced under wholly organic conditions could only be certified as "wine made from organic grapes" and not as "organic wine". The respondents brought an application for an interdict seeking retraction and publication of correct facts, which the High Court granted.

• Whether the elements of injurious falsehood were proved
• Whether the statement 'no longer organic' was a false representation
• Whether the appellant knew the representation was false
• Whether the respondents suffered damages as a result of the representation
• Whether the respondents proved causation between the false statement and alleged loss

1. The appeal is upheld with costs such costs to include costs of two counsel. 2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs'.

To succeed in a claim for injurious falsehood and obtain an interdict, a plaintiff must prove all four essential elements: (a) that the defendant by word or conduct made a false representation to others concerning the plaintiff; (b) that the defendant had subjective knowledge that the representation was false (which must be specifically alleged); (c) that the plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of the representation; and (d) that the false representation was the cause of such loss. The failure to prove any one of these elements is fatal to the claim. Where a defendant disputes the falsity of a statement and provides a version that is not farfetched or clearly untenable under the Plascon-Evans rule, the court cannot reject that version on the papers alone.

While the court noted that the High Court had also considered unlawful competition and defamation as bases for relief, counsel for the respondents before the Supreme Court of Appeal was constrained to limit the justification for the interdict to injurious falsehood alone. The court commented that the complaint by Stevens appeared to be "contrived" in light of the changes to EU organic wine production standards in August 2012 and the fact that the respondents had not produced wine since 2011. The court also noted that the High Court had found that the appellant had no reason to publish the statement and rejected her contention of no intention to injure, but these findings became immaterial once it was established that the essential elements of injurious falsehood had not been proved.

This case clarifies the elements required to prove injurious falsehood in South African law and emphasizes the strict requirements for obtaining an interdict on such grounds. It establishes that all elements must be specifically alleged and proved: (1) a false representation concerning the plaintiff; (2) subjective knowledge by the defendant that the representation was false; (3) actual damages suffered; and (4) causation between the false statement and the loss. The case also demonstrates the application of the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings and the importance of distinguishing between pre-2012 and post-2012 EU organic wine certification standards. It serves as a cautionary precedent against granting interdicts where the plaintiff has failed to establish all necessary elements of the delict relied upon.