Tiger Brands’ attempt to hide the identity of its insurer – which is pulling the strings in a class action lawsuit brought by listeriosis victims – has come to nought.

A Financial Mail report notes the lawsuit was lodged a year ago, claiming damages on behalf of some of the 218 people who died from the worst outbreak of listeriosis ever in 2017 and 2018. Even though the National Institute of Communicable Diseases traced the outbreak to Tiger Brands’ Enterprise factory in Polokwane, the company has refused to admit culpability.

Tiger Brands CEO Lawrence MacDougall told the FM last month that the company was not sharing who the insurers were.

Now, however, it has emerged in legal papers obtained by the FM that the insurers are Stalker Hutchison Admiral (SHA Risk Specialists) and QBE Insurance Group. SHA, founded in 1985, is 100% owned by Santam, the short-term insurance subsidiary of Sanlam.

So why did Santam not want its name known as the ultimate owners of the company fighting the listeriosis victims?

The FM reports notes the lawyers acting for SHA are Clyde & Co. In November, Clyde & Co partner Daniel le Roux told the FM he was ‘not permitted to say’ who the insurers were. However, it was Le Roux’s own complaint to the Legal Practice Council about the lawyer representing the listeriosis victims, Richard Spoor, which ultimately revealed the insurer’s identity.

According to the FM, this sideshow illustrates how ill-tempered this legal battle has become. Le Roux’s complaint is that he and Spoor were engaged in ‘without prejudice negotiations’ about how to split the costs of a media campaign over the listeriosis case, when details of these discussions leaked to journalists.

In his response in October last year, Spoor wrote back to the Legal Practice Council saying that after Clyde & Co refused to split the costs of the campaign, he confirmed to a journalist that they had ‘refused to contribute to the costs’.

‘There was no breach of confidentiality … the complainants were never in a position to insist their position on that matter could be withheld from public scrutiny,’ he said.

Asked what had become of the case, Spoor said this week: ‘I responded to the Law Society, and I’ve heard nothing since.’

Full Financial Mail report (subscription needed)