Court rules on the disclosure of HIV status in defamation case

THE question of whether disclosing another person's HIV status publicly constitutes either defamation or breach of privacy recently came under the judicial spotlight, with a court declaring they are independent and distinct actions that must be pleaded separately.

- ZELDA VENTER

This comes after a member of the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (Numsa), during a public meeting, mentioned that one of its members is HIV-positive. The woman, only identified as K, was emotionally traumatised by this.

She instituted a damages claim against the union and its member, who had divulged her status, claiming that his disclosure was defamatory of her.

The Bloemfontein High Court earlier ruled in her favour and ordered Numsa to pay her R100 000 in damages.

Numsa subsequently appealed the finding, and the High Court found in its favour.

Acting Judge HE De La Rey found that defamation and a breach of privacy are two separate issues. The offending disclosure, the judge stated, was categorised as a breach of privacy, which was not included in K’s original case.