Brondani v Brondani (2021/52977) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1157 (17 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Brondani v Brondani
Citation: Brondani v Brondani (2021-52977) [2025] ZAGPJHC --- (17 November 2025)
Date: 17 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant contributions to the principles of court-annexed mediation and how parties may engage in this process per the Uniform Rules of Court in South Africa. It clarifies the requirements for compelling a party to participate in mediation, particularly addressing the relevant standards of what constitutes valid reasoning to opt-out. The ruling has implications for future civil litigations involving similar disputes and reinforces the significant aim of court-annexed mediation to facilitate resolution while alleviating court congestion.

The judgment is particularly notable as it emphasizes the necessity for parties to engage in mediation, even in the presence of strong opposition or belief that mediation may not be fruitful. This highlights the judicial reinforcement of mediation as a preferred method of conflict resolution, establishing a procedural framework that litigants must follow.

Additionally, the case elaborates on the nature of the disputes that courts must navigate concerning mediation protocols, essentially redefining how parties must present their objections against mediation, which will serve to guide litigants and attorneys in the preparation of their cases.

Cases Cited

• Michael and Another v Bezuidenhout NO and Another [2014] ZASCA 5
• Hannett v Restoration of South Africa SA (Pty) Ltd (2020) 42 ZASCA 240

Legislation Cited

• Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 41A
• Directive Introducing Mandatory Mediation in the Gauteng Division

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 30A of the Uniform Rules of Court
• Paragraph 4.7 of the Mediation Protocol

HEADNOTE

Summary

In the matter of Brondani v Brondani, the Gauteng Division of the High Court addressed an interlocutory application concerning an order compelling the defendant to participate in court-annexed mediation in line with the mandatory mediation framework. The court found that a party’s subjective belief that mediation would be futile does not provide sufficient grounds to bypass the mediation process mandated under the rules. The judgment underscores the importance of mediation as a significant mechanism for resolving disputes and incorporates a structured procedural approach towards managing objections to mediation.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the defendant’s objections against mediation qualified as valid grounds for refusing to engage in the process mandated by the court. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the defendant's refusal, founded on personal belief regarding the futility of mediation, was admissible under the mediation protocols.

Held

The court held that the defendant must cooperate in the appointment of a mediator and engage in the mediation process as stipulated by the Mediation Protocol. The court determined that extreme acrimony between the parties and the subjective belief that mediation would fail did not suffice as justifiable reasons for refusing participation in mediation. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs concerning the interlocutory application.

THE FACTS

The plaintiff, Roberto Brondani, pursued a damages claim exceeding R1 million against the defendant, Mauro Brondani, citing an assault occurring in December 2019. Conversely, the defendant counterclaimed for damages amounting to R2.5 million, alleging that the plaintiff had assaulted him, resulting in severe injuries.

Amidst these ongoing civil proceedings, the plaintiff initiated an interlocutory application compelling the defendant to engage in mediation according to the procedures set out in Uniform Rule of Court 41A and the specific Mediation Protocol. The defendant flatly opposed this application, arguing that engaging in mediation would be a waste of resources given the contentious nature of the litigation and prior unsuccessful settlement attempts.

The defendant’s opposition was marked by a strong dismissal of the mediation process, asserting it was ill-suited for the unique facts of the case. He presented his arguments with a firm belief that mediation could not feasibly resolve the disputes presented, further complicating the court's determination of his objections' validity.

THE ISSUES

The court had to ascertain whether the defendant's categorical rejection of mediation based on the belief that it would be unproductive was a sufficient reason to avoid complying with mediation protocols set forth under the Uniform Rules of Court. The court also considered whether the notice served by the defendant was adequately detailed to meet the requirements of the Mediation Protocol, thus making it either valid or irregular.

Moreover, the court sought to clarify the threshold for excuses from mandatory mediation, particularly evaluating the relevance of past attempts at settlement in determining the viability of mediation.

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis revolved around the overarching purpose of the Mediation Protocol, which aims to foster a culture of collaboration and provide a structured framework for resolving disputes outside of a trial setting. The ruling noted that if parties are allowed to refuse mediation based solely on personal beliefs about its ineffectiveness, it would undermine the goals of the mediation process.

It reiterated that mediation is meant to facilitate conversations and foster understanding between parties, with mediators acting as neutral third parties focused on crafting solutions. The judge emphasized that the potential for disputes to have a complex or protracted history does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an avoidance of mediation.

The court distinguished between a party's genuine belief about mediation's futility and established grounds that are deemed sufficient to exempt a party from participating in mediation. It concluded that the subjective fear of wasted time or costs cannot pre-empt the court's directive for mediation, emphasizing the necessity for litigants to actively engage in attempts to resolve their disputes through mediation as prescribed by law.

REMEDY

The court ordered the defendant to cooperate with the appointment of a mediator and actively participate in furthering the mediation process according to the directives outlined in the relevant Mediation Protocol. The defendant was specifically compelled, within ten days, to submit a compliant amplified rule 41A notice detailing his preferred approach to the mediation process and suggesting qualified mediators for appointment.

Subsequently, the plaintiff was directed to respond within a ten-day timeframe, ensuring adherence to the structured mediation process established.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This judgment establishes critical legal principles regarding the application of mediation in civil litigation. Firstly, it affirms that subjective beliefs about the futility of mediation do not constitute a valid excuse for a party to refuse participation in mediation. Secondly, the ruling explains that reasons for non-participation must be presented in a manner that directly correlates with the specifics of the case at hand rather than relying on generic objections.

Finally, the judgment highlights that the objectives of the mediation protocol necessitate that parties engage genuinely in the process to uplift access to justice, resolve disputes effectively, and relieve court congestions, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.