South Africa: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A High Court judgment has reinforced the protection of litigation privilege for expert reports commissioned by insurers during pending litigation. When a loss adjuster's preliminary report was requested for disclosure, the court examined whether it qualified for privilege protection and what implications this holds for the insurance industry's handling of expert assessments in claims disputes.

The Gauteng High Court's judgment in TMM Holdings v Skycastle Securities examines when litigation privilege protects documents from disclosure, specifically addressing whether insurance claim forms and investigative reports created for multiple purposes qualify for privilege. The court applied the dominant purpose test to determine if documents prepared simultaneously for insurance claims, internal investigations, and potential litigation must be disclosed in discovery proceedings.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) in the case of Ibex RSA Holdco Ltd and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (“Ibex”)...

A critical analysis of the South African High Court's decision in Soft Coffee v Nonnas Pasta reveals a judgment that correctly applied the notional use doctrine and dismissed an improperly pleaded prior use defence, yet failed to distinguish between different forms of trade mark infringement. The court's conflation of sections 34(1)(a) and (b) resulted in an overbroad interdict that extends beyond what the legal reasoning can support, particularly regarding the respondent's company name versus product brand

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published its 2025 arbitration and ADR statistics, confirming that with 894 new cases registered, 2025 ranks among the top three years in ICC history...

A South African court examines whether an acknowledgement of debt containing specific payment terms qualifies as a promissory note under the Bills of Exchange Act, determining the applicable prescription period for debt recovery. The case turns on statutory interpretation of negotiable instruments and the distinction between mere acknowledgements and unconditional promises to pay.

The Western Cape High Court examined whether the Legal Practice Council could urgently suspend two legal practitioners without conducting a proper investigation into allegations of trust fund misappropriation exceeding R16.9 million. The case centered on the interpretation of section 43 of the Legal Practice Act and whether the LPC's expedited process, based solely on untested allegations from a complainant involved in divorce proceedings.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has published draft Regulations introducing formal provisions for electronic commissioning of affidavits in South Africa. This legislative modernisation proposes to allow commissioners to administer oaths remotely through audio-visual communication, fundamentally changing the traditional requirement for physical presence while maintaining essential safeguards.

A High Court judgment has reinforced the protection of litigation privilege for expert reports commissioned by insurers during pending litigation. When a loss adjuster's preliminary report was requested for disclosure, the court examined whether it qualified for privilege protection and what implications this holds for the insurance industry's handling of expert assessments in claims disputes.

The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) accepted that the employer had a genuine commercial rationale for restructuring but still found the dismissals substantively unfair because the employer could not defend the selection of the employees retrenched.

The Johannesburg High Court has published lead times for setting matters down for hearing, revealing significant delays across various case types. With opposed applications facing 18-week waits and long-duration trials not being heard until 2028, the bulletin raises questions about court capacity and potential solutions to address mounting backlogs.

A South African patent court ruled in favour of Astellas Pharma against generic drugmaker Cipla, preventing the sale of their generic overactive bladder treatment. The dispute centered on a formulation patent for mirabegron and highlighted the critical role of expert witnesses in helping courts understand complex pharmaceutical inventions and food-effect interactions.