Listen to this article

Workplace disputes and legal parameters in relation to defamation, contractual interference, and repudiation

6 min

Brief facts of the case

The appellant, John Ross Sephton, was a hydrologist engaged as a subcontractor by the fourth respondent, Piteau Associates, to provide services at a mining operation managed by Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd and Anglo American Platinum Limited (the Anglo parties). On 9 September 2019, an incident occurred in which Sephton swung his lunch bag, making contact with the buttocks of the third respondent, a colleague at the mine. The third respondent perceived this conduct as inappropriate and lodged a complaint under Anglo’s Harassment Policy.

Following the complaint, an internal investigation was conducted, during which the appellant was temporarily restricted from accessing the site. The inquiry ultimately concluded that the conduct did not constitute sexual harassment, and the appellant was permitted to return to work. However, upon his return, the third respondent experienced distress, reportedly in the form of a panic attack, which led to further workplace concerns. Consequently, the appellant’s access to the site was denied, which resulted in the effective termination of his subcontract with the fourth respondent.

The High Court

The appellant alleged that he had been wrongfully accused of sexual harassment and that Anglo had endorsed this accusation, thereby causing reputational harm. However, the court found that the third respondent had merely reported the facts of the incident without explicitly alleging sexual misconduct. Furthermore, Anglo had not made any defamatory statements but had conducted a workplace investigation in accordance with their policies. Given that defamation requires a demonstrably false statement that harms an individual’s reputation, and no such statement was proven, the claim was dismissed.

Another issue before the court was the alleged wrongful interference with the appellant’s subcontract. The appellant argued that by barring him from the site, Anglo had effectively prevented him from fulfilling his contractual obligations, leading to the termination of his subcontract. However, the court emphasised that access to a workplace is generally at the discretion of the entity controlling the premises. There was no legal obligation on Anglo to permit the appellant’s continued access, nor was there evidence to suggest that their actions were unlawful or intended to cause him harm.

Without proof of wrongful conduct, the claim for contractual interference could not succeed.

The final legal issue concerned the alleged repudiation of the subcontract by the fourth respondent. The appellant contended that the fourth respondent had pressured him to agree to an early termination of the contract, which he refused, asserting that this constituted repudiation entitling him to damages. However, the court found that merely requesting a mutual termination does not amount to repudiation, as it does not indicate an unequivocal intention to abandon the contract. Additionally, since the appellant was unable to access the site through no fault of the fourth respondent, performance of the contract had become impossible. In such circumstances, contractual obligations were deemed extinguished, and the claim for repudiation was not upheld.

Findings and conclusion

The High Court found no basis for the defamation claim, concluding that the third respondent had not falsely accused the appellant of sexual harassment but had merely reported her experience. Additionally, Anglo had lawfully conducted an internal investigation in accordance with their policies.

The claim for wrongful interference with contract was also dismissed, as Anglo had no legal obligation to grant the appellant access to the site. Their decision to restrict access fell within their rights as the property controllers.

Furthermore, the court rejected the repudiation claim, holding that merely proposing an early cancellation of the contract did not constitute repudiation. This was particularly relevant given that the appellant’s exclusion from the site rendered contract performance impossible.

Ultimately, the court upheld the previous ruling, granted absolution from the instance, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

This case highlights important legal and employee relations principles. It highlights the significance of professionalism in the workplace having clear workplace policies; and what adherence to contractual obligations entails.

The decision reinforced that workplace conduct is assessed from the recipient’s perspective (victim-centric), meaning that even unintended actions may be perceived as inappropriate. It affirmed that internal workplace investigations, when conducted fairly and in accordance with established policies, do not constitute defamation or wrongful interference with contractual relationships. Additionally, the judgment clarified that property owners have the legal right to control site access, and restricting entry does not amount to unlawful interference with a contract.