plaintiffs-heads-4b04685abeea6d13.pdf

This document contains the final heads of argument for the plaintiff, Wray Pex (Pty) Limited, in a defamation lawsuit against Arthur Barnes, Edward Mervyn John Gaylord, Helen Duigan, and Lisa Essberger. The plaintiff argues that the defendants recklessly imputed illegality to its activities, causing defamatory harm and delays, and seeks constitutional and exemplary damages.

• The plaintiff asserts that Edward Mervyn John Gaylord's claims regarding the illegality of the plaintiff's activities are defamatory per se and that Gaylord failed to establish the defences of truth, public benefit, or fair comment.
• The plaintiff argues that Gaylord acted with recklessness and 'studied ignorance' regarding the legal requirements for environmental approval and townships, and is estopped from proving illegality because he previously failed to interdict the activities on those grounds.
• The plaintiff contends that the defendants' reliance on the Constitution—specifically Sections 17, 24, and 33—is invalid because the right to freedom of speech does not protect the making of false statements.
• Lisa Essberger is accused of making defamatory statements recklessly and in 'studied ignorance,' including a contradictory claim that the 'Finfoot' was located at a bridge not situated on Blair Athol.
• Helen Duigan is alleged to have authorized the publication of a letter imputing illegality in 'studied ignorance,' failing to prove that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required or that due process was not met by 14 September 2004.
• The plaintiff describes Arthur Barnes' testimony as 'singularly unimpressive' and 'evasive,' noting that Barnes' counsel could not provide the exact words used in conversations with Hampson nor deny that certain statements were made, except for a general denial of using the words 'fraud' or 'bribery'.
• The plaintiff seeks an order for damages based on the defamatory statements and resulting delays, citing Sections 38 and 172(4)(b) of the Constitution to justify effective relief, including constitutional and exemplary damages for 'outrageous' conduct.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). plaintiffs-heads-4b04685abeea6d13.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Plaintiffs-Heads.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. plaintiffs-heads-4b04685abeea6d13.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Plaintiffs-Heads.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=plaintiffs-heads-4b04685abeea6d13.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Plaintiffs-Heads.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndplaintiffsheads4b04685abeea6d13pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{plaintiffs-heads-4b04685abeea6d13.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Plaintiffs-Heads.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }