Running the arithmetic of outrage is a worthwhile but often neglected preliminary step before issuing summons. Imagine that someone has called you “dishonest and incompetent” in your local ratepayers’ association annual general meeting. Naturally, you are neither dishonest nor struggling more than most with the challenges of your job. You are irate. You want vindication. You want your day in court. You want the world to know the truth.

Excellent! Here is what those things will cost you.

First, the attorneys’ fees. Defamation litigation is not a sprint; more like the Comrades Marathon in formal attire. There will be consultations, elegantly drafted letters of demand, pleadings, interlocutory applications, discovery and, if you are particularly unlucky, your matter will run all the way to a trial. By the time you have had your day in court and the judge has decided the matter, you will have spent enough money to buy a lovely German sedan. Top of the range. With heads up display. And heated seats. Seats that massage you. And blow your choice of hot or cold air up your shirt.

Second, let’s talk about all those damages you want to claim. Even if you win (with that “if” doing more heavy lifting than the Springbok front row in a week of gym sessions), South African courts are nothing like their US equivalent in defamation awards. You are likely to receive (once you have deducted your legal costs) just enough to take yourself out for a modest dinner. At Nando’s. Without extra Peri Peri or sides.

Third, remember the Streisand Effect¹ where attempts to suppress embarrassing information causes the exact opposite. The defamatory statement that was heard by 17 people on a Tuesday evening at the local MOTH hall could, once you have issued your summons, be reported in your local newspaper with a readership of 20,000 and shared far and wide on social media. Congratulations! You have just ensured that a few hundred thousand people will hear the very insult you wanted to silence.

There is a radical alternative though. Instead of rushing to your lawyer, consider this two-step programme for the restoration of your dignity.

Step one

Take the money you would have spent on litigation (a serious chunk of change) and drive it straight to a dealership. Select something with at least two turbos, a panoramic sunroof and a sound system with 28 speakers (Twenty-Eight!), each speaker hand-tuned by Bavarian monks who have abandoned their vows of silence specifically for this purpose. Every time the phrase “corrupt and incompetent” surfaces, turn up the music and accelerate (within the speed limit, of course). You will find that the sting of “corrupt and incompetent” fades considerably when you are cruising, cossetted delightfully in pristine sound while the smell of new leather is being blown up your shirt.

Step two

With the remaining funds in your litigation budget (and there will be remaining funds, because cars are cheaper than trials) find a competent psychologist. Discuss your feelings of injustice. Explore the childhood experiences that make you so sensitive to criticism. Develop coping mechanisms. Learn to breathe. Practice mindfulness. After 12 months of weekly sessions, when you again attend your local ratepayers’ association annual general meeting you will feel nothing more than a faint, benevolent pity for the uncouth loudmouth who attempts to insult you. Surely this is a far more satisfying victory than a court order that your opponent will probably not pay anyway.

We hear you cry: “But what about justice?”

We hear you. We do. And we acknowledge that there are cases - genuine, serious cases - where defamation litigation is both necessary and appropriate. Where a person’s livelihood has been destroyed, where the insults are outrageous and persistent, where the defendant has lots of assets and the evidence is overwhelming. The law is there for a reason and the right cases should be pursued with vigour.

But for the ordinary insult, the social media slight, the business rival who has said something unkind at a dinner party, the vulgar neighbour at the local ratepayers’ association annual general meeting - we counsel restraint. The greatest revenge, as the saying goes, is living well. And living well is substantially easier when you have not spent your children’s university fund on a defamation action that settles on the court steps for an apology that nobody will ever read.

So, the next time someone says something terrible about you, take a deep breath. Close your laptop. Step away from your telephone. And ask yourself a simple question: “Would I rather have a High Court judgment; or a new car and a healthy relationship with my emotions?” You know already which one has better resale value.

The views expressed in this article are intended to be humorous and do not constitute legal advice. If you have been genuinely defamed, we will gladly assist, and we will give you a realistic estimate of the cost before you make any decisions.

In 2003 Kenneth Adelman took aerial photographs of the California coastline for an environmental documentation project. One of the photographs happened to include Barbara Streisand’s Malibu mansion. She sued Adelman for $50 million and for an order that the image be removed from his publicly available collection. Before she went to court the photograph had been downloaded a handful of times. The publicity generated by the legal action resulted in hundreds of thousands of downloads. Streisand lost the case and had to pay Adelman’s legal costs.