Fair comment – errors of fact may not be fatal; other defamatory publications cannot be relied upon in mitigation: In a libel claim concerning allegations of the irresponsible sale of vitamins to treat HIV and AIDS, the Claimant applied to strike out various parts of the defence. Tugendhat J held, inter alia, that an error in the facts stated in the article might not be fatal to a fair comment defence by virtue of s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952, and that previous articles about which the Claiman ...
|
Qualified privilege – Article 8 considerations may limit scope of privilege: Summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of a plea of qualified privilege was not granted in a claim for slander as, inter alia, it was arguable that the words complained of engaged the claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention and/or the Data Protection Act 1998, and that accordingly the test for qualified privilege might need to be reconsidered.
|
Abuse of process – claims against other defendants can be considered: Slander proceedings were brought against two defendants over statements said to have been made in a pizza delivery restaurant. The defendants sought summary judgment, alternatively that the claim be struck out as an abuse of process. Summary judgment was refused as the claim could be rescued by an appropriate witness statement; but the claim was an abuse of process given the likely damages, the cost of proceedings and other cl ...
|
Qualified privilege – Reynolds privilege available to non-media publishers: A politician who made a defamatory speech at a public meeting could rely upon Reynoldsprivilege if the subject matter was in the public interest and he had acted responsibly in publishing the words.
|
Expenses:- These two actions related to an issue of the Daily Record published on 29 November 2005 that carried articles relating to Mr. Hutchinson and AppA. The articles were critical of the methods by which they sold therapeutic beds to elderly customers. Here the pursuers lodged, in each action, a minute of abandonment. In each case the defenders lodged a motion for expenses and an additional fee. The motion stated inter alia:- "On behalf of the defenders, in respect of the pursuer's abandonm ...
|
Defamation/Forum Non Conveniens:
As averred by the pursuer the only substantial reason as to why the case is being pursued in Scotland as opposed to England is that it would survive a limitation plea. The hearing considers the question of whether a court should send an action away to another jurisdiction in which it was bound to fail due to the operation of the law of limitation operating in that jurisdiction as opposed to possible failure on fact or merits. In addition the pursuers averments on defamation are challenged for fa ...
|
Petition for Interdict/Defamation:
Petitioners claim that the respondents engaged in a deliberate campaign aimed at injuring the the petitioners commercial reputation and trading prospects by falsely accusing the petitioners of misleading actual and potential customers by claiming that Profilit was a safety glass. The live issues are whether the respondents have made false and misleading statements containing representations to the effect that the petitioners have been deceitful duplicitous and misleading. Secondly if the respond ...
|
| 1 |