Reddell v Mineral Sands Resources

Last updated

Reddell v Mineral Sands Resources
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameChristine Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources Proprietary Limited and Others
Decided14 November 2022 (2022-11-14)
Docket nos.CCT 67/21
Citation(s) [2022] ZACC 38; 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 830 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell; Mineral Commodities v Dlamini; Mineral Commodities Limited v Clarke [2021] ZAWCHC 22 in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division
Related action(s) Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell [2022] ZACC 37
Court membership
Judges sitting Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Mlambo AJ, and Unterhalter AJ
Case opinions
Save for where the speech forms part of public discourse on issues of public interest, and at the discretion of the court, trading corporations can claim general damages for defamation.
Decision byMajiedt J (Madlanga, Mathopo, Mhantla, Theron, Tshiqi, and Mlambo concurring)
DissentUnterhalter AJ (Kollapen concurring)
Keywords

Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others is a 2022 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa concerning the right of trading corporations to claim for general damages in defamation suits. A majority of the court upheld that right but qualified that it does not apply to defamation suits arising from public discourse on matters of public importance. Moreover, the court located the right as grounded in a common law personality right rather than as grounded in the Bill of Rights; in that it diverged from the Supreme Court of Appeal's opinion in Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation.

Contents

The case was heard on 17 February 2022 and decided on 14 November 2022. It is one of a pair of Constitutional Court judgements arising from a series of defamation suits laid by two mining companies against six environmental activists; the other, decided at the same time, is Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell .

Background

The applicants were two mining companies, Mineral Commodities Limited and its South African subsidiary, Mineral Sands Resources, as well as two of the companies' directors. The respondents were six environmental activists and lawyers – Christine Reddell, Tracey Davies, Davine Cloete, Mzamo Dlamini, Cormac Cullinan, and John Clarke – whom, in three consolidated court actions, the respondents had sued for defamation. The allegedly defamatory statements were critical of the mining companies' controversial operations at the Xolobeni titanium mine on the Wild Coast and the Tormin sand mine on the West Coast.

High Court action

The defamation suits were heard in 2021 by Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath of the Western Cape High Court. They were consolidated as Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Another v Reddell and Others; Mineral Commodities Limited and Another v Dlamini and Another; Mineral Commodities Limited and Another v Clarke.

Seeking to quash the defamation suit, the activists (the respondents in the High Court action) raised two special pleas against in the High Court, both of which were met with exception from the mining companies; arguments on the exception were heard on 9 June 2020. [1] The first special plea raised the so-called strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) suit, and the High Court upheld it as a proper defence and basis for dismissal. However, the second plea mounted the so-called corporate defamation defence, arguing that the mining companies were not entitled to sue for general damages. The High Court upheld the mining companies' exception to that plea, finding that it was not a competent defence. [1]

The High Court dismissed the defamation suit on 9 February 2021 when it upheld the SLAPP suit special plea. Both parties appealed the High Court's order: while the mining companies appealed the High Court's decision to uphold the SLAPP suit plea, the activists appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss the first plea. [2] The appeals were consolidated for the purposes of the Constitutional Court's hearing, but were dealt with in separate judgements: Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell concerns the SLAPP suit plea, and Reddell v Mineral Resources concerns the corporate defamation plea. [3]

Arguments

The applicants argued that trading corporations are not entitled to claim for general damages in defamation suits, because such claims impose unjustifiable restrictions on the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Such restrictions are justifiable when imposed to protect the constitutional right to dignity, but such a right is borne only by natural persons, not by trading corporations; moreover, corporations' interest in their reputations is purely financial, rather than personal, in nature. Therefore, in order to mitigate any restriction on freedom of expression, corporations which sue for general damages for defamation must be held to the same stringent requirements as when they sue for the delict of injurious falsehood. Specifically, they must allege and prove that the statements are false, were made wilfully, and caused patrimonial loss.

In making this argument, the applicants argued that a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal had erred in Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation , which affirmed that trading corporations can sue for general damages for defamation. The respondents, by contrast, defended the SA Taxi decision as constitutional and otherwise beneficial in such respects as deterring fake news.

Judgments

In its majority judgement, penned by Justice Steven Majiedt, the Constitutional Court partly upheld the activists' appeal, making a declaratory order that "save for where the speech forms part of public discourse on issues of public interest, and at the discretion of the court, trading corporations can claim general damages for defamation." Majiedt agreed with the activists, and disagreed with the majority judgement in SA Taxi, that a purposive reading of section 10 of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from being the bearers of a right to dignity. Nonetheless, he affirmed the common law right of corporations to their "good name and reputation", which is enforceable through defamation claims and sometimes through claims for general damages. However, the protection of that common law personality right must be balanced against the chilling effect that general damages have on freedom of expression, and that limitation exercise is tipped in favour of speech – and against the availability of general damages – when "the nature of the speech is such that it is of public importance". Thus trading corporations are not entitled to claim for general damages "in cases of public discourse in public interest debates", as determined at a court's discretion; in such cases, claims for general damages pose unjustifiable limitations on freedom of expression.

Acting Justice David Unterhalter submitted a dissenting judgement, supported by Justice Jody Kollapen, in which he expressed "some doubt that the right conferred by section 10 of the Constitution cannot be enjoyed by a trading corporation".

Subsequent action

The parties reached a partial monetary settlement in the defamation action in November 2023. [4]

Related Research Articles

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

<i>Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick. Gutnick contended that part of the article defamed him. A key judgement was that the suit could be brought in Australia.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food libel laws</span> Laws passed in some US states to make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are the following: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Constitutional Rights</span> U.S. nonprofit organization

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a progressive non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was founded in 1966 by Arthur Kinoy, William Kunstler and others particularly to support activists in the implementation of civil rights legislation and to achieve social justice.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nevsun Resources</span> Former Canadian mining company

Nevsun Resources Ltd was a Canadian diversified mid-tier miner with a portfolio of base metal assets. The company was acquired by Zijin Mining Group Company Limited on December 29, 2018. The company's three principal assets are its ownership interest in the Timok Project, a high-grade copper-gold development project in Serbia, its Bisha zinc-copper mine in Eritrea, and its balance sheet. The company also holds a number of additional exploration licences and permits in Serbia, Macedonia, and in the Bisha mining district.

Susan L. Burke is an American lawyer noted for her work to reform the military system of prosecuting rape and assault and in representing plaintiffs suing the American military or military contractors, such as the Abtan v. Blackwater case. She represented former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison in a suit against interrogators and translators from CACI and Titan Corp. who were tasked with obtaining military intelligence from them during their detention. Her work was featured in the documentaries The Invisible War and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Burke one of the top 75 female attorneys in the nation.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> 2011 US legal case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

James McGibney is an American entrepreneur and former Marine. He is the CEO and founder of Las Vegas, Nevada based ViaView, Inc., which owns and operates the web sites BullyVille.com, CheaterVille.com, KarmaVille.com, and DramaVille.com.

The Xolobeni mine is a proposed titanium mine located in the Wild Coast region of the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The proposed mine has reserves amounting to 348.7 million tonnes of ore grading 5% titanium.

Steven Arnold Majiedt is a South African judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He joined the Constitutional Court in October 2019 as an appointee of President Cyril Ramaphosa. Formerly a practicing advocate, he served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from 2010 to 2019 and in the Northern Cape High Court from 2000 to 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SLAPP Suits</span> Segment from the American television program "Last Week Tonight"

"SLAPP Suits" is a segment of HBO's news-satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, focusing on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). It first aired on November 10, 2019, as part of the twenty-ninth episode of the series's sixth season. The episode marked British-American comedian and host John Oliver's response to winning a SLAPP defamation lawsuit against him initiated by American mining businessman Robert E. Murray. The lawsuit began in 2017, after Oliver heavily criticized Murray and his company, Murray Energy, in a segment concerning the coal-mining industry in the United States. Murray claimed in his lawsuit that Oliver had carried out a character assassination against him, but the case was dismissed in under a year, and an appeal by Murray Energy was unsuccessful. During the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that was widely covered due to its sarcastic humor.

<i>Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell</i> South African legal case

Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which affirmed a common law defence against strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) lawsuits. It was heard on 17 February 2022 and decided on 14 November 2022 in a unanimous judgment written by Justice Steven Majiedt. The Constitutional Court ruled that it is proper to identify and dismiss SLAPP suits as an abuse of process, but that such a determination rests on the merits of the suit in question, as well as on its motives.

References

  1. 1 2 Chamberlain, Lisa (3 July 2021). "SLAPPing back: A new legal remedy for targets of corporate bullying". South African Journal on Human Rights. 37 (3): 410–422. doi:10.1080/02587203.2022.2044377. ISSN   0258-7203.
  2. Yeld, John (1 February 2022). "Australian mining company's 'Slapp case' against its critics heads to Concourt". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
  3. "Concourt holds that SLAPP suit defence exists in South African law". The Mail & Guardian. 15 November 2022. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
  4. Yeld, John (22 November 2023). "Mineral Commodities Ltd 'Slapp suit' partly settled out of court". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 17 January 2024.