Surekha Doolabh v Sunday Times

Complaint number: PCSA 000797

Author: Gill Gifford

Headline: Salon battle over R800,000 sees Tammy Taylor victim become the accused

Publication Date: 14 September 2026

Date lodged: 21 September 2026

Link to story: https://www.sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za/news/2026-09-14-salon-battle-over-r800000-sees-tammy-taylor-victim-become-the-accused/#google_vignette

Particulars

1. This ruling is based on correspondence from Surekha Doolabh, Robin Wheatley (on behalf of Arena Holdings), and Thabo Leshilo, the Press Council’s Public Advocate (PA).

The article

2. The article is about a bitter franchise dispute between Jannelle Joshie, the owner of the Harmony Nail and Beauty Wellness Studio business, and Surekha Doolabh, who says she paid R1.15 million to buy a Harmony salon in Boksburg but was never given effective control of the business or refunded her money.
3. The dispute reportedly “has spawned criminal and civil proceedings, complaints to consumer authorities and a Legal Practice Council investigation into a lawyer who represented Joshie”. Doolabh laid criminal charges against Joshie, while the latter instigated civil proceedings against the former.

The complaint

4. Doolabh complains that the article is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. Clause 1.5: “The media shall use personal information for journalistic purposes only”;

b. Clause 3.1: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives of individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by legitimate public interest”; and

c. Clause 3.5: “The media shall only disclose sufficient personal information to identify the person being reported on as some information, such as addresses, may enable others to intrude on their privacy and safety, and such disclosure shall only be made if in the public interest.”

5. The gist of her complaint is that the Sunday Times published her full name, despite her request for anonymity. She says she communicated her reasons for this request to the editor, which were both regarding her and her daughter. “The fact that the underlying story may be in the public interest does not, in my submission, automatically establish that publication of my full name was itself necessary in the public interest,” she argues.

6. The relevant question, she argues, is whether the public interest necessitated the invasion of her privacy.

7. In conclusion, she says: “I respectfully submit that the question is not simply whether the story was in the public interest, but whether the publication of my full identity was necessary and proportionate to that public interest when the same substantive story could have been reported without identifying me by name.”

Relief sought

8. Doolabh asks for:

a. the immediate removal of her full name from the online version of the article, replacing it with a non-identifying descriptor such as “a Johannesburg franchisee” or “the franchisee”, while retaining the substantive factual reporting;

b. the removal of her full name from the article’s associated metadata and other publication-controlled online elements, where applicable, to reduce the continued association of her name with the article;

c. Sunday Times to take reasonable and technically appropriate steps to prevent her name from being indexed or displayed in search engine results in connection with the article, including reviewing relevant indexing controls and requesting removal or de-indexing where appropriate;

d. written confirmation of the steps taken in response to her complaint; and

e. the Press Council to consider whether an appropriate editorial correction and explanation address the publication of her identity despite her express request for anonymity.

Decision by the Public Advocate

9. The PA declined to accept Doolabh’s complaint as there was “no prima facie breach of the Press Code, which is the basis for accepting complaints”.
10. His motivation was that:

a. the article did not provide information beyond what was necessary to show readers who was being reported on, and that they were not making the story up;

b. the Press Code prohibits publication of unnecessary personal information, such as addresses (which did not happen in this case); and

c. Doolabh did not ask for anonymity as a condition for giving the reporter the story – otherwise, that would have raised the prospects of a breach of Clause 1.4 of the Code. She indeed did not complain that the newspaper obtained her story dishonestly.

Appealing the PA’s decision

11. Doolabh appealed this decision. She says her complaint is not that the Sunday Times was prohibited from reporting on a public-interest matter, but whether publishing her full name was necessary and proportionate under Clauses 3.1 and 3.5 of the Press Code. She argues that the article linked her identity to a contentious commercial dispute, exposing her to avoidable consequences.
12. She inter alia asked, “How much personal information about me was necessary to publish and whether I needed to be identified by my full name at all”.
13. She argued that the public interest in the franchise dispute did not automatically justify disclosing her identity.
14. She also pointed out that the Press Code stipulates that the media should disclose only sufficient personal information to identify the person being reported on and specifically recognises that disclosure of personal information may intrude upon privacy and safety. “My complaint concerns precisely that question of proportionality and necessity.”
15. The PA then sent her complaint to the newspaper.

Reply to the complaint

In general

16. Asking this office to dismiss the complaint, Wheatley argues that identifying Doolabh served a legitimate journalistic purpose and was in the public interest because her case involves a significant commercial dispute that has led to civil litigation, criminal proceedings, and regulatory intervention.
17. He says the matter inter alia depends on the nature of the information, the circumstances in which it was shared, its existing exposure and the purpose and effect of publication. “Participation in commercial dealings and open civil and criminal proceedings narrows the expectation of privacy concerning those activities, while leaving unrelated personal and family matters protected.”
18. Wheatley submits that Doolabh is a private citizen whose request merits weight, but the report concerns an ongoing commercial dispute with consumer-protection implications, rather than curiosity about her private life.

Why identification served the public interest

19. Arena argues that Doolabh’s identity was central to the story and that identifying her by name was justified by her direct involvement in the underlying events and legal proceedings.
20. “Identifying her enabled readers to connect her account and her legal interests with the specific transaction and proceedings, rather than treating these as unrelated allegations. Naming the central parties also made the story accountable and capable of being checked against the relevant proceedings and documents. This matters where serious allegations about an identified business and its owner are contested.”
21. Wheatley submits that identifying her “added a material public benefit and readers could understand and scrutinise the connection between a particular complainant’s account, the disputed transaction and the related civil claim and criminal proceedings”. This was especially relevant where serious allegations were made about an identified business and its owner, he concludes.

The request for anonymity

22. Wheatley submits that the newspaper never undertook to grant Doolabh anonymity. He notes that, in her request, Doolabh expressly states that she does not allege dishonest acquisition of her information. Therefore, no confidential-source relationship has been established.
23. If Arena acceded to the request by not naming the complainant and naming the other party to the dispute, the story would not be balanced vis-à-vis the other party, Wheatley also argues.

Clauses 3.1 and 3.5

24. Arena points out that the newspaper did not publish Doolabh’s residential address, telephone number, email address or identity number, nor did it identify her daughter or disclose her daughter’s personal circumstances.
25. While online publication makes the association with the dispute readily searchable, potentially enduring and capable of further circulation, he submits that the dispute is already in the public domain. “Moreover, once a ruling is made by the NCT and the High Court, the issues would be similarly public.”
26. The article presents her as the purchaser advancing complaints, rather than the person facing criminal prosecution. That distinction is material to the foreseeable employment impact, he opines.
27. Wheatley says the newspaper does not dismiss that association as irrelevant: if the daughter is a child, her best interests require special weight, and indirect identification and foreseeable harm must also be considered. However, on the material supplied, Arena submits that these concerns did not outweigh the public benefit of identifying the adult participant in this specific dispute.
28. Arena concludes that “the identification was proportionate and balanced because it concerned her directly relevant commercial role, connected the competing accounts and proceedings, and did not extend to contact details or unrelated family information”.

Clause 1.5

29. In addition to Arena’s arguments above, Wheatley adds that Doolabh’s information was used for the journalistic purpose for which she approached the newspaper, reporting on the franchise dispute and its consumer-protection implications. “The complaint identifies no use of her information for an unrelated purpose.”

Relief sought

30. Arena submits that the article did not breach any clause of the Press Code – hence, there is no basis for a sanction against the newspaper.

Rejoinder

In general

31. Doolabh says her complaint is not that Sunday Times should not have reported on the franchise dispute, nor that the newspaper was prohibited from investigating her allegations or verifying the documents she provided. “My concern is that the newspaper chose to publish my full name despite my advance request for anonymity, although the underlying story could have been reported without necessarily identifying me personally,” she summarises.
32. Her main arguments are as follows:

Request for anonymity

33. Doolabh acknowledges that she did not initially make anonymity a condition of participating or receive an express guarantee of confidentiality. However, she argues that, after she expressly raised her privacy concerns prior to publication, Sunday Times was required to meaningfully consider the justification for identifying her by name, the potential harm to her personal circumstances and future employment prospects, and less-identifying alternatives.
34. She asks this office to determine whether publishing her full name complied with Clauses 3.1 and 3.5, irrespective of whether anonymity had been promised or not.

In the public interest to identify her?

35. Doolabh says she accepts that the franchise dispute and related civil, criminal and tribunal proceedings were matters of legitimate public interest. However, she reiterates that this did not automatically justify publishing her full name. Although Arena contends that identification helped readers verify her account and understand her role in the proceedings, she submits that the dispute, transaction, competing accounts and supporting evidence could have been reported without publicly identifying her.
36. “I respectfully submit that the identity of the business, the nature of the franchise transaction, the allegations made by the respective parties and the existence of the relevant proceedings could have been reported without necessarily publishing my full personal name,” she submits.
37. Moreover, the journalist also knew that she had purchased the franchise through a company, not in her personal capacity.
38. The central issue, she reiterates, is whether disclosing her identity was necessary and proportionate to the public interest.

Identity not necessarily revealed

39. Doolabh submits that the court cases to which Arena refers do not mean her personal identity would necessarily have become publicly available or that disclosing it in the article was necessary.
40. “The possibility that information may become available through some public records is not, in itself, an answer to whether the newspaper’s own disclosure was justified under clauses 3.1 and 3.5,” she argues.

The story could have been reported without identifying her

41. Doolabh submits that News24’s decision to report on the same matter while respecting her anonymity demonstrates that a less intrusive approach was practical.
42. “Arena acknowledges in its response that the description ‘a Johannesburg franchisee’ could have conveyed the broad consumer warning and that the documents I supplied could have enabled the newspaper to verify an anonymised account internally. Arena expressly states that it does not contend otherwise. I respectfully submit that this concession is significant. It confirms that the newspaper recognises that the underlying consumer warning could have been communicated without identifying me by name, and that internal verification of my account did not necessarily require public disclosure of my identity,” she opines.
43. Although Arena argues that naming Doolabh added public benefit and promoted balance, she contends that the newspaper could have identified the business, explained the transaction and presented competing accounts without disclosing her full name. The central issue is therefore whether naming her provided sufficient additional public benefit to justify intrusion into her privacy.

No need for identification

44. Doolabh says she understands that a journalist may need to establish the identity and credibility of a source and verify the facts being reported. “However, I respectfully submit that the ability to verify a person’s identity internally is different from the need to disclose that identity publicly.”
45. She asks what specific and material public benefit required the publication of her full name, as opposed to identifying the relevant business and reporting the transaction and dispute accurately.
46. “The newspaper’s desire to make the story independently checkable is understandable. However, I respectfully submit that this objective could have been achieved without necessarily exposing my full personal identity to an online audience. The availability of a less intrusive alternative is particularly relevant because I had expressly raised my concerns way in advance before publication,” she concludes.

The relevance of the omission of other personal details

47. Doolabh submits that, even though the article did not publish her home address, telephone number, email address, identity number, or her daughter’s identity or personal circumstances, she persists with her complaint about the publication of her full personal name “in connection with a contentious commercial dispute and related legal proceedings”.
48. She adds, “A person’s full name can itself be identifying personal information. When associated with a searchable online article, it can create a lasting connection between that person and the dispute. The absence of a residential address or telephone number does not, by itself, resolve whether publishing the person’s name was necessary or proportionate.”

Employment, family concerns were communicated before publication

49. Doolabh says she understands Arena’s position that she did not identify a specific safety risk and that the article did not directly identify her daughter or disclose her personal circumstances. “However, I respectfully submit that a privacy complaint should not depend solely on whether a complainant can demonstrate a specific physical safety risk or prove that a family member was directly identified,” she contends.
50. She says her concern is that her full name would be publicly associated with a contentious franchise dispute and related legal proceedings, with the potential for that association to be found through online searches and to affect her personal and professional life.
51. The issue is not whether the public interest outweighed her privacy concerns automatically, but whether disclosing her full name was necessary to serve that interest, Doolabh concludes.

Use of personal information for journalistic purposes

52. Doolabh says she accepts that the information was supplied for journalistic purposes and that Sunday Times was entitled to investigate and report on the franchise dispute. “However, the fact that information was obtained for a journalistic purpose does not … resolve whether every aspect of that information was necessary to publish.”
53. She points out that Arena itself accepts that compliance with Clause 1.5 of the Press Code does not dispense with the separate obligations stipulated under Clauses 3.1 and 3.5. “I therefore ask that the question of the use of my personal information be assessed together with the privacy and proportionality considerations raised above.”

Assess cumulatively

54. Doolabh asks this office inter alia to consider that:

a. she requested anonymity before publication and explained her concerns;

b. she is a private individual involved in a commercial transaction through her company;

c. News24 demonstrated that the same underlying matter could be reported while respecting my anonymity; and

d.. the online article creates an enduring, searchable association between her full name and the dispute.

55. “I respectfully ask that these factors be assessed cumulatively, rather than treating the public interest in the underlying dispute as sufficient … to justify publication of my full personal name.”

Analysis

The crux of the matter

56. The central question is whether publishing Doolabh’s full name was justified after the newspaper had been informed of her concerns. In other words, did the public interest in this case outweigh her request for anonymity? Was the disclosure of her full name necessary to serve the public interest? Or did the article, by identifying her by her full name, unnecessarily invade her privacy?

Some correspondence between Doolabh and Sunday Times

57. Let me first take a closer look at some correspondence between the parties.
58. On 4 September 2026, ten days prior to publication, Doolabh sent a letter to the editor, requesting that she not be identified in the upcoming article.
59. Her main concern was that publishing her name would link her personal and professional identity to a controversial matter, potentially harming her reputation, affecting future job or career opportunities, and exposing her and her daughter to unwanted attention.
60. This is how she put it: “My concern is not about the article making negative claims about me. It is about my personal and professional identity being publicly attached to this matter and also how that would affect my daughter. This entire ordeal has already taken a significant toll on both of us, and any further impact would be devastating… There is also a significant practical consideration for me as a single mother. I am currently actively seeking employment and trying to rebuild my professional career after this ordeal. My full name being permanently searchable online alongside an ongoing legal and criminal dispute could potentially affect how prospective employers perceive me, regardless of the fact that I am not accused of any wrongdoing. Once my name is attached to an online article, it can remain searchable and be reproduced or referenced elsewhere indefinitely. I am therefore concerned about the long-term personal and professional consequences of having this particular dispute permanently linked to my identity.”
61. On September 16 (two days after publication), the editor responded, stating: “In the circumstances, it’s not for you to agree or not for your name to be published. Public interest – especially given the copy-cat potential fraud flowing from Tammy Tailor stuff overrides everything.”
62. Doolabh replied, stating that she accepted the public interest in reporting potential consumer harm but argues that this did not automatically justify publishing her full name. “My request has been for the story to be reported without unnecessarily exposing my personal and professional identity,” she wrote.
63. Citing the Press Code’s privacy provisions, she questioned why full identification was editorially necessary. “I would … appreciate understanding why identifying me by my full name was editorially necessary, rather than simply permissible.”

My considerations

64. While I have sympathy with Doolabh’s request for anonymity, I consider that:

a. the media are under no obligation to conceal or withhold the name of a person who is involved in a court case (the matter is currently before the Palm Ridge Commercial Crimes Court). The exceptions to this, of course, are matters of a sexual nature and cases where minors are involved – neither of which applies in this matter;

b. Doolabh was fully entitled to request anonymity; similarly, Sunday Times was just as entitled to make its editorial decision as it saw fit;

c. it was in the public interest to publish Doolabh’s name, as that enabled readers to assess the matter properly;

d. Doolabh’s identity was central to the story and identifying her by name was justified by her direct involvement in the underlying events and legal proceedings – these enabled readers to connect her account and her legal interests with the specific transaction and proceedings, rather than treating these as unrelated allegations. It also made the story accountable and capable of being checked against the relevant proceedings and documents (as Wheatley correctly points out);

e. Doolabh did not give information on condition of anonymity, and the newspaper never promised anything of the sort; and

f. I am not convinced that identifying her is likely to cause her unnecessary harm. It is not the newspaper’s fault that she was involved in a court case – Sunday Times merely reported that fact. The editor had no reason to keep her name confidential.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Deputy Press Ombud

22 October 2026