SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION struck out from any affidavit is scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant.”127 Second, the defendant (the target of the SLAPP case) also requested the payment of punitive damages, which were subsequently granted by the High Court128 alongside the attorney costs.129 The Court made these conclusions on several basis: a) the plaintiff elected the incorrect proceeding to pursue relief,130 b) the defendant had to launch a substantial defence against these proceedings and request the actual hearing131 and c) the proceedings against the defendant were of a punitive nature.132 ● By contrast, the High Court of Delhi did not grant payment of costs to SLAPP victims in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace (India). Although the Court did not grant an interim injunction to restrain the publication of material contributing to public debate —because it would be too onerous on the defendant to either stop publication of the material or an unjust restriction on the freedom of expression133— it failed to assess the need to provide pecuniary relief on the basis of unsubstantiated claims seeking to restrict the dissemination of information contributing to debate on matters of public concern. 127 Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII), Uniform Rules - Rules regulating the conduct of the proceedings of the Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa, p. 24. 128 High Court of South Africa, op. cit., para 25. 129 Ibid., para 49.2. 130 Ibid., para 43. 131 Ibid., para 32. 132 Ibid., para 44. 133 The High Court of Delhi, op. cit., paras 29 & 31. 24