Mandatory Mediation in Defamation Suits: A Balancing of the Scales Between Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Reputation

Authors: R. Prinsloo

Abstract:

Rule 41A was introduced to the Uniform Rules of Court with the intention of promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR), specifically mediation, as a means of resolving disputes; its voluntary nature allows parties to explore mediation willingly without the imposition of a mandatory requirement. Defamation suits, often notorious for their protracted litigation timelines, could benefit from the streamlined efficiency offered by mandatory rule 41A processes. Mediation, when mandated, could serve as a swift alternative, alleviating the burden on the court system and providing expedited relief to aggrieved parties. By incorporating a mandatory mediation step, parties might be encouraged to engage in a more constructive dialogue at an earlier stage, potentially fostering resolutions that might be elusive within the confines of protracted courtroom battles. This expedited resolution could not only benefit the litigants involved but also contribute to the broader efficiency and efficacy of the legal system. However, the application of rule 41A in defamation cases raises intriguing questions about its effectiveness in balancing the scales between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. In considering the potential merits of making rule 41A mandatory in defamation cases, a key consideration is the prospect of expeditious and cost-effective resolution.

Keywords: Constitution of South Africa, defamation, litigation, mandatory, mediation.

References:

[1] Neethling, J., Potgieter, J. M., and Visser, P. J. Neethling's Law of Personality. 2nd ed. Butterworths, 2005.
[2] National Media Ltd v Bogoshi (1998) ZASCA 94; 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA).
[3] Currie, I., & De Waal, J. (2013). The Bill of Rights Handbook (6th ed.). Juta & Co.
[4] Le Roux v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC).
[5] Mnookin, R. H., Peppet, S. R., and Tulumello, A. S. Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. Belknap Press, 2004.
[6] Tillett, G. and French, B. Resolving Conflict: A Practical Approach (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006.
[7] De Girolamo, D. "The Future of Mediation: The Role of Mediation in Civil Justice Systems." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2010, pp. 295–321.
[8] Van Meter, K. Defamation Law and social media: Mediating High-Stakes Conflicts. Routledge, 2020.
[9] Defamation Act No. 50 of 1957.
[10] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
[11] Newspapers Ltd v R v Naylor 1909 TS 132.
[12] Mthembi-Mahanyele v Mail & Guardian Ltd 2004 (6) SA 329 (SCA).
[13] Bush, R. A. B., and Folger, J. P. The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[14] Bosch, D. and Lötter, C. "The Role of Mandatory Mediation in the South African Civil Justice System: A Comparative Overview." Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 2016.
[15] Strydom, H. (2019). Mediation in defamation disputes: A comparative perspective. Journal of Contemporary Law, 45(2), 123-145.
[16] H v W 2013 (2) SA 530 (GSJ).
[17] Rolph, D. Defamation Law. 1st ed., Thomson Reuters, 2016.
[18] Duncan v Minister of Finance (2003) 6 BCLR 674 (CC).
[19] Khumalo v Holomisa (2002) ZACC 12; 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC).
[20] Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority 2002 (4) SA 294 (CC).
[21] Murray, C., and Lichtenstein, A., "Mediation as a Tool for Resolving Defamation Disputes: The Need for Alternative Solutions." Journal of Dispute Resolution, vol. 2010, no. 1, pp. 1–20.
[22] Folger, J. P. and Bush, R. A. B., Transformative Mediation: A Sourcebook. 2001.
[23] Gordon, T. "The Role of the Advocate in Mediation: A Comparison of the Traditional and Collaborative Models." Harvard Negotiation Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, 2009, pp. 305-324.