The original judge in this matter involved himself in the mediation process and had to disqualify from presiding over the case as a result. It's not unusual for defamation matters to go to mediation, but I think it's unusual for the judge to involve himself in such a way that disqualifies him from hearing the matter. Why would he do it? The only reason I can think of is that the judge doesn't believe it's in anyone's interests for this matter to go to trial, on the basis that every party in the matter will wind up a loser if it does. It's not the judge's role to prevent someone from having a win, but it might be his role to step in if everyone is going to lose. So if Sharaz has put something forward constructive during the mediation, but Reynolds has refused it, the court might view that refusal as vexatious and rule against her on costs while winning on the substantive matter of whether or not she was defamed.
