MAJIEDT J doctrine and, if not, whether it should be developed in that regard. Thus, the central issue is whether our law currently permits that ulterior motive alone, to the exclusion of the merits of a claim, may be determinative of abuse of process, so that the claim can be dismissed solely on that basis. If not, ought this Court to develop the common law to recognise abuse of this kind? [3] The case originates from three defamation suits instituted by the present applicants, Australian mining companies and some of their executives, as plaintiffs in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town (High Court). The defendants in the suits are the present respondents before us; they are environmental lawyers and activists. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they are in this Court, although the context may sometimes require reference to them as they were cited in the High Court.4 From time to time they may also be referred to as “the mining companies” or “the mining executives” (plaintiffs/applicants) and “the environmentalists” (defendants/respondents). [4] The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) was admitted as the first amicus curiae. CALS is a public interest organisation and is also registered as a law clinic based at the University of the Witwatersrand’s School of Law. Two of their programmes, the Environmental Justice Programme and the Civil and Political Justice Programme, are of relevance to this application. The former aims to hold corporate actors accountable for environmental damage and to make section 24 environmental rights a reality for all who live in South Africa. The latter seeks to further the rule of law and respect for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Because of what it does under these two programmes, CALS has an interest in the present litigation. CALS made useful written and oral submissions in this case, setting out the nature and treatment of SLAPP suits in foreign jurisdictions, focusing primarily on the tests used in foreign jurisdictions to identify and address cases presenting as or alleged to be 4 Although there are three separate cases with different case numbers in the High Court, only one judgment was delivered in respect of them and there is only one application in this Court. The applicants and respondents are therefore numbered differently in this Court and the High Court. 4