MAJIEDT J (c) this forms part of a “pattern of conduct” by the mining companies and their directors in which they seek to bring defamation actions for these purposes. [26] The respondents assert that it must also be accepted as true that the mining companies have not brought a defamation claim for a reasonable amount, likely to be recovered, to compensate them for injury to dignity. Instead, they have brought a series of claims for amounts which they know they will not recover, in order to silence their critics. [27] The main thrust of the respondents’ argument is that the existing doctrine of abuse of process encompasses a SLAPP suit defence and that the existing common law allows and requires courts to consider ulterior motive when assessing whether a litigant has abused court proceedings. Ultimately, the respondents submit that the common law also allows for ulterior motive solely to be determinative of abuse of process in certain circumstances. They rely heavily on Lawyers for Human Rights17 as authority that an ulterior motive can be considered solely determinative of abuse of process. According to the respondents, that case holds that, generally, abuses of process occur when court processes are used for ulterior or extraneous purposes. This finding makes clear that (a) ulterior motives will be considered; and (b) ulterior motives can be determinative of abuse of process. [28] The respondents also rely on a number of other cases for their submission that “our courts have repeatedly referred to the purpose of the litigation as being relevant to and possibly determinative of the question of abuse of process”.18 They take issue with the applicants’ contention that these cases are distinguishable. 17 Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister in the Presidency [2017] ZACC 22; 2017 (5) SA 480 (CC); 2017 (10) BCLR 1242 (CC). 18 They cite Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation [2019] ZACC 41; 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC); 2020 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (Ascendis); Roering N.O. v Mahlangu [2016] ZASCA 79; 2016 (5) SA 455 (SCA); Phillips v Botha [1998] ZASCA 105; 1999 (2) SA 555 (SCA); Gold Fields Ltd v Motley Rice LLC 2015 (4) SA 299 (GJ). 12