M'Lintock v. Stubbs, Ltd [1902] ScotLR 40_10 (15 October 1902)

M'Lintock v. Stubbs, Ltd [1902] ScotLR 40_10 (15 October 1902)

The Court held that the publication in Stubbs' Gazette was a true and accurate report of the decree in absence as recorded in the court book, and that the omission of the original sum sued for or continuations did not render the report misleading or defamatory. There was no material omission or inaccuracy that could support a claim for libel.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 40_10
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Thomas Bryce M'Lintock; Defender/reclaimer: Stubbs, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 1902
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Libel / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; first plea-in-law for defenders sustained.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Fair Report Privilege, Court Reporting, Accuracy of Publication
Tort Media Law Defamation Libel Fair Report Privilege Court Reporting Accuracy of Publication

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Bryce M'Lintock

Pursuer/respondent

Stubbs, Limited

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Libel / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication in Stubbs' Gazette constituted a libel by inaccurately or misleadingly reporting a decree in absence against the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether omitting certain details from the court record (such as the original sum sued for and continuations) rendered the publication materially misleading or defamatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the publication in Stubbs' Gazette was a true and accurate report of the decree in absence as recorded in the court book, and that the omission of the original sum sued for or continuations did not render the report misleading or defamatory. There was no material omission or inaccuracy that could support a claim for libel.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; first plea-in-law for defenders sustained.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • First plea-in-law for defenders sustained.