Every industry has its own language, arcane codes only insiders understand. Especially lawyers, whose processes often lead to hours of argument over wording on statements. But as Independent Newspapers proprietor Iqbal Survé showed so forcibly this week, he has no desire to play according to such genteel rules of engagement. After almost three years of preparation, on Monday Survé faced a Labour Court trial expected to last two weeks, in which former Cape Times editor Alide Dasnois was ready to add more embarrassing information to her 67 page affidavit. The fight should have never have gotten that far. But in some last minute damage control, Survé offered to settle and should have been relieved to have it accepted virtually on the steps of the court. The settlement included a joint statement doubtless crafted very carefully by the legal teams. They needn’t have bothered. In a bizarre twist, Survé’s newspaper immediately spun the settlement as a victory for their proprietor, Dasnois is not amused and is now upping the ante. With her financial demands satisfied, there is now nothing stopping her from hanging out all Survé’s dirty laundry. She intends doing so in a very public way. Emotion and business are poor bedfellows. – Alec Hogg
By Genevieve Quintal
Johannesburg – Former Cape Times editor Alide Dasnois intends to lodge a complaint with the Press Ombudsman following two articles published about the settlement of the case between herself and Independent Newspapers, her lawyers said on Wednesday.
This followed the withdrawal of the unfair dismissal case against them by Dasnois, following an agreement reached.
In a statement on Dasnois’s behalf, Jason Whyte from Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc, said the Cape Times had carried an article under the heading “Independent Media vindicated as Dasnois settles” on its front page on Tuesday, as well as a second article headed “Failed to have Madiba’s death on front page”.
Whyte said the crux of the article was where the author claimed that Dasnois “has attempted to conclude the matter in return for a substantial financial payout. We have constantly rejected this and believed that the matter of Dasnois decision on the night of December 5 had to be ventilated an open court”.
The paper also claimed that, because Dasnois “falsely” sought to depict her claim as a case about press freedom and editorial prerogative, this made it “even more important [for INMSA] to [try] the matter in court”.
Read also: Billions not enough to destroy former Cape Times editor: ‘satisfied’ with settlement
Whyte said the Cape Times, however, pointed out that the case was indeed (inexplicably) settled by an agreement.
“INMSA was obviously a party to that agreement, but the reader is left to somehow conclude that INMSA – although insistent that this case would never be settled by INMSA out of court as our client has no valid case – somehow inexplicably agreed to settle this case in the face of an invented claim brought by an undeserving gold-digger,” he said.
“What the article fails to explain is that an unfair dismissal case of this nature brought by an employee cannot be settled in this fashion unless the employer offers the employee (i.e. the one seeking ‘a substantial financial pay out’) terms that can persuade her and her lawyers that she may be better off by not proceeding with case.”
