Page 83 - Q&A.indd

surety having a right of recourse against the principal debtor for any
moneys paid on behalf of the principal debtor by the surety.

There is still a duty on any creditor to mitigate damages that are suferred
and to take the necessary steps to ensure that the creditor does not
contribute to the damages. Should a surety be of the opinion that the
creditor did not take the required steps the onus will again be on the
surety to prove that the creditor acted negligently and as a result of the
creditor’s negligence, contributed to its damages. But proceeding with
execution steps and selling assets on a public auction, is not in itself
acting negligently and any proceeds realised from such a sale will be
seen as the reasonable price of the assets. The onus that rests on a
surety is therefore very high and in most instances, it may be easier for
the surety to enforce its right of recourse against the principal debtor
and not the creditor.

In your situation, unless the creditor failed to comply with a duty or
obligation contained in the principal agreement or deed of suretyship
and unless negligence can be clearly proven, it may be very difficult
for you to avoid responsibility for the shortfall. I would advise consulting
with your attorney to carefully review the contracts and facts of the
matter.

Can one e-mail constitute harassment?

March 2017

“At work one of my colleagues recently replied to an e-mail
that I had sent to him, in a terribly derogatory fashion, calling
me names and insulting me in a very chauvinistic fashion.
He sent his reply to me and many of my colleagues and
I am ashamed by what he said and how he riduculed me
as a woman in front of my colleagues. I feel victimized by his
conduct. But what can I do, it was just an e-mail?”

In terms of the Protection from Harassment Act, 2011 (“the Act”), Litigation
harassment is seen as conduct that takes place repetitively over a period
of time to constitute harassment. However, our courts have recently held
that for a victim to be granted protection under the Act, the conduct
need not be repetitive in nature and that a victim would be entitled
to protection if a single act was of such an overwhelmingly oppressive
nature, that it would have the same effect on the victim as to a victim
experiencing protracted harassment.

The Act’s definition of harassment includes conduct that a perpetrator
knows or ought to know will cause harm, which means any mental,

77