Plasket J in Harvey v Niland (5021/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 149 ; (2016) ILJ 1112 ; [2015] JOL 34909 (3 December 2015) at para [49]

“It is so that the hacking of Niland’s Facebook communications would have produced both information that was relevant to the business of Huntershill and Niland’s fiduciary duties to it, and information that was irrelevant to those issues and entirely private.  The relevant material that was accessed, however, established that Niland had been conducting himself in a duplicitous manner contrary to the fiduciary duties he owed to Huntershill.  That duplicity was compounded by the fact that he had denied that he was acting in this way and had also undertaken not to do so.  In these circumstances, his claim to privacy rings rather hollow”.

See: Facebook hacked: Evidence admitted by High Court