Johannesburg - The claws are out in the multimillion-rand Sidney Frankel molestation lawsuit, with the two legal sides taking a swing at the other’s credibility.
The stockbroker and philanthropist is at the centre of a sex scandal after seven people laid civil charges against him last month for allegedly abusing them when they were children.
Frankel is accused of sexually abusing the now adult claimants, often at his Kyalami game farm, with some of the claims dating back more than 40 years.
Last week, Frankel’s lawyer Billy Gundelfinger filed a series of notices with the high court in Joburg, where he attacked the case against his client. Labelling the claims as “vague and embarrassing”, Gundelfinger accused the claimants of overly similar affidavits of the abuse and its consequences, lacking in any concrete detail.
In one of the notices, Gundelfinger accuses the claimants of failing to show in any detail the consequences, with many relying on exactly the same allegations. All seven are claiming R5 million for “general damages, pain and suffering, (and) loss of amenities of life”.
While such civil claims can prescribe if the complaints are not lodged within three years of the act, or within three years of realising the consequences of the act, Gundelfinger said each of the plaintiffs had failed in their affidavits to detail when they became aware of the damage Frankel had allegedly done.
Another notice involved Gundelfinger requesting that each of the three claimants who no longer live in South Africa be required to put down the money that would cover the legal costs of Gundelfinger’s services, should his client be found innocent – about R144 000 each.
But in a lengthy response to The Star, the claimants’ lawyer, Ian Levitt, said such accusations were desperate measures from the businessman’s side, and that at least 10 others had come forward with stories of abuse by Frankel.
“This conduct by Frankel is clearly indicative of his desperation to avoid my clients’ claims being ventilated in court. This has only strengthened my clients’ resolve to pursue the claims to their finality,” he said.
Levitt added: “My clients will fight the requirements to furnish security as we believe that to force the victims in this case to (do so) would hinder their rights of access to justice.
“Furthermore, regarding the complaint that the same allegations have been made by some of my clients, I find it bizarre that (Frankel) objects to this.” He questioned Frankel’s motive.
“Frankel’s modus operandi was essentially the same, and the common thread is that he sexually abused children. Why would there be vast differences? As far as each claimant claiming the same amounts, once each of my clients has undertaken further comprehensive consultations with my experts, and once their reports are finalised, the amounts of the claim could likely increase or decrease accordingly. This is normal practice in litigation.”
The seven complainants have to sue Frankel in a civil case because of the time that has passed, meaning he can no longer be criminally tried. Levitt said the crime of rape could never be prescribed in law, but that at the time of the alleged offences, male rape was regarded as indecent assault.
The Star