Davies & Davies Ltd. v. Kott

Davies & Davies Ltd. v. Kott

Where defamatory words are published on an occasion of qualified privilege the trial judge must not submit the issue of express malice to the jury unless, in his view, the admissible evidence is sufficient to raise a probability of malice (more than a mere scintilla); applying that test the Court of Appeal correctly held there was no sufficient evidence of malice and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Citation
[1979] 2 SCR 686
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Davies & Davies Limited; Defendant Respondent: Bernard Kott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 1979
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice (express/actual), Defamatory Letters, Judge and Jury Functions, Standard for Submitting Issues to Jury
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice (express/actual) Defamatory Letters Judge and Jury Functions Standard for Submitting Issues to Jury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davies & Davies Limited

Plaintiff Appellant

Bernard Kott

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letters were capable of defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether letters were published on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether evidence justified leaving issue of express malice to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Where defamatory words are published on an occasion of qualified privilege the trial judge must not submit the issue of express malice to the jury unless, in his view, the admissible evidence is sufficient to raise a probability of malice (more than a mere scintilla); applying that test the Court of Appeal correctly held there was no sufficient evidence of malice and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.