Thanks for the further question - I must apologise if I missed the second part of the question.
The problem here is the assumption that Carte Blanche intended to cause damage to Dr. Hern. I did not see the insert on Carte Blanche so I really cannot venture an opinion on it, but the nature of investigative journalism is that various options are considered and reported on - in this instance it would appear that there might be two " experts" namely Dr. Hern and her partner on the one side and Sam Ferreira on the other who have different opinions on the effectiveness of the proposed infusion of Rhino horn.
Now, as a rule people are allowed to have different opinions, and journalists are allowed to report on them. Whether this report leads to financial loss or not. Normally, the journalist will report on both sides of the story and will give opportunity to both sides to share their views and respond to what the other person says.
In my opinion, without having seen the Carte Blanche episode, I think it will be very difficult to prove that Carte Blanche had the intent to cause damage and to claim against them - off course I say this with the understanding that I have not seen the footage.
The question will also be asked whether Carte Blanche gave any opinion, or whether they merely reported on what Sam Ferreira's opinion was.
If you need more information on this topic please feel free to ask more at no extra cost.
If you are satisfied that I answered your question correctly, please give this service a positive rating.