KEY POINTS
- A lawyer sued an estate agent for defamation over personal and professional disputes.
- The court ruled that the estate agent must uphold his promise to stop making defamatory statements.
- The judge rejected the estate agent’s defense, citing malicious intent in his communications.
A legal battle between a Johannesburg lawyer and an estate agent has drawn attention to the blurry lines between personal and professional disputes.
The estate agent, identified as BT, was taken to court by the lawyer, JW, after allegedly sending defamatory messages about him to colleagues at his law firm.
The dispute appears to have stemmed from JW’s relationship with BT’s ex-wife, known as Ms. T. Initially, the lawyer and estate agent had an amicable working relationship, with JW handling conveyancing work for BT.
However, tensions arose when BT discovered JW’s romantic involvement with his former spouse. This led to a series of messages and correspondence in which BT attempted to tarnish the lawyer’s reputation.
Despite promising to stop spreading defamatory claims, BT allegedly continued, prompting JW to take legal action.
The lawyer sought a court order to enforce the agreement that the estate agent had previously made to cease such conduct.
Court examines claims of breach of agreement
In an unusual legal strategy, Acting Judge Adrian Friedman noted that the case was structured around a contractual breach rather than a traditional defamation claim. JW argued that BT had agreed to stop defaming him but failed to uphold this commitment.
One of the more controversial incidents involved BT sending a WhatsApp message to JW’s colleagues, including the managing director of the firm.
The message contained a photo of the lawyer shirtless, accompanied by the caption: “This is the man you have working for you.” BT also sent a message to Ms. T, warning her that “karma was coming” for her and her new partner, further calling them “evil.”
In addition to the WhatsApp messages, BT sent a formal letter to JW’s employer. He accused JW of unprofessional conduct, claiming that JW was intoxicated at company functions.
The letter also suggested that JW had initiated a relationship with Ms. T while she was still married. He denied the allegation.
Judge rejects estate agent’s defense
In court, BT attempted to defend himself. He argued that his prior agreement did not legally bind him to stop making defamatory statements.
He also claimed qualified privilege, citing his previous business relationship with JW’s law firm as justification for his communications.
However, Judge Friedman dismissed these arguments. He ruled that BT’s messages and letters were malicious and went beyond the protections of qualified privilege.
The court ruled that BT, bound by his earlier undertaking, must stop making defamatory statements about JW.
This case serves as a cautionary tale. It shows how personal grievances can escalate into legal battles, especially when professional reputations are at stake.
It also underscores the importance of upholding legal agreements, even in emotionally charged situations.
