Primrose v. Waterston [1902] ScotLR 39_475 (20 March 1902)

Primrose v. Waterston [1902] ScotLR 39_475 (20 March 1902)

The words complained of were uttered by the defender while sitting as a magistrate in the course of judicial proceedings and with reference to the case before him. The privilege attaching to judges, whether superior or inferior, is absolute, and no action for damages will lie, even if the words are alleged to be malicious or irrelevant. The defender was therefore entitled to absolvitor.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_475
Parties
Pursuer: William Primrose; Defender: James H. Waterston
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 March 1902
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of absolvitor affirmed.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Judicial Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Reparation, Slander
Tort Judicial Immunity Defamation Judicial Privilege Absolute Privilege Reparation Slander

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Primrose

Pursuer

James H. Waterston

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an inferior judge (magistrate) is absolutely privileged from liability for damages in respect of words uttered in the course of judicial proceedings, even if alleged to be malicious and irrelevant.
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were uttered in the course of judicial proceedings and connected to the case at hand.

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were uttered by the defender while sitting as a magistrate in the course of judicial proceedings and with reference to the case before him. The privilege attaching to judges, whether superior or inferior, is absolute, and no action for damages will lie, even if the words are alleged to be malicious or irrelevant. The defender was therefore entitled to absolvitor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of absolvitor affirmed.

Orders

  • Sustained defender's third plea-in-law.
  • Disallowed the issue for trial.