Claim for single publication to journalist not an abuse of process: An application to strike out a claim for libel and/or slander in respect of a publication to one person as an abuse of process was dismissed, as that person was a journalist for a well-respected publication (the Financial Times) and it was intended that he would pass on the words, which were capable of amounting to an allegation of dishonesty, to a huge readership. The court could not conclude that there was no damage to ...
|
Caution:- On 11 December 2008 the court made an order requiring the pursuer to find caution for future expenses of £15,000. The pursuer applied for leave to reclaim that interlocutor in terms of Rule of Court 38.5. It was submitted by the pursuer that if he was granted leave he intended argue that the requirement that he find caution was disproportionate and in contravention of his Article 6 rights because it prevented access to the courts. Further, it was submitted that the defenders' appl ...
|
Motion for Caution:- In this action the pursuer was a party litigant and the defenders were the publishers of inter alia "The Sunday Times". The pursuer sought damages, declarator and interdict by reason of wrongs that he averred he suffered by the publication on 11 February 2007of an article entitled "Heritage Fakers Hold Builders to Ransom". Here the defenders enrolled a motion for the pursuer to find caution in the sum of £50,000, or such other sum as might to the court seem appropriate ...
|
The Claimant’s appeal against a Master’s order striking his claims out as abuses of process was allowed where there had been a “few dozen” hard copy and internet publications within the jurisdiction. That the allegations related to events that occurred decades ago was not a ground for striking the claims out, and it was irrelevant that the allegations had been published many times previously without complaint.
|
Letters not capable of bearing defamatory meaning; but may constitute causing loss by unlawful means. The words in a letter sent by BT to Tiscali customers concerning a possible ‘plot’ to sell Tiscali’s broadband business were not capable of bearing any meaning of dishonesty or breach of duty by the company towards its customers, or any meaning defamatory of it; but the letters were arguably in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and the Business ...
|
In context, a spoof diary of the Claimant did not bear the serious defamatory meaning pleaded and that meaning was struck out. The ordinary reasonable reader would not read such an allegation into a parody piece in the context in which it was published.
|
Aggravated damages plea relying on subsequent publications struck out on proportionality grounds: An aggravated damages plea that relied on a number of other publications said to also be libellous but not directly sued upon was struck out on case management grounds.
|
Reclaiming Motion:- Here the pursuer and respondent sought damages from the defenders and reclaimers in respect of defamation of him by them alleged to have occurred in material published on 4 January 2005. Following a procedure roll debate, the Lord Ordinary made no order in hoc statu in the action. The defenders and reclaimers submitted that the Lord Ordinary had erred in refusing to dismiss the action, as they had sought. At the start of the hearing, it was indicated by counsel for the pursue ...
|
High Court declines to refuse jurisdiction: The High Court refused the Defendant’s application to decline jurisdiction on the basis that it could not have a fair trial as Russian law prevented it from identifying a witness when the evidence was that the witnesses’ identity was not so protected and in any event the significance of that was unclear as the Defendant had not identified the nature of its defence.
|
Claimants must accept or reject an offers of amends within a reasonable time: A Claimant was not entitled to leave open the question of whether or not it was accepting or rejecting a Defendant’s offer of amends under s.2 of the Defamation Act 1996 and was ordered to accept or reject the offer within a reasonable time.
|
| 1 2 3 |