MacKay v Scottish Hydro Electric Plc [1999] ScotCS 258 (4 November 1999)

MacKay v Scottish Hydro Electric Plc [1999] ScotCS 258 (4 November 1999)

The court found that the statements made by Dr Martin did not cause hurt or damage to the pursuer's reputation at the relevant time, and that the pursuer did not feel affront or insult as a result. The mere suggestion of a competence investigation, in the circumstances, did not bear a defamatory innuendo. There was no evidence of malice. Therefore, the action for defamation failed.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 258
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Miss Phyllis Jane Mackay; Defender and Respondent: Scottish Hydro Electric Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal at Perth, Following Proof Before Sheriff
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors of sheriff principal and sheriff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Constructive Dismissal
Tort Employment Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Constructive Dismissal

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Phyllis Jane Mackay

Pursuer and Appellant

Scottish Hydro Electric Plc

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal at Perth, Following Proof Before Sheriff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by Dr Martin to the pursuer were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether suggestion of competence investigation can bear defamatory innuendo
  3. 3 Whether pursuer suffered hurt or damage to reputation from statements

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by Dr Martin did not cause hurt or damage to the pursuer's reputation at the relevant time, and that the pursuer did not feel affront or insult as a result. The mere suggestion of a competence investigation, in the circumstances, did not bear a defamatory innuendo. There was no evidence of malice. Therefore, the action for defamation failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors of sheriff principal and sheriff affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Interlocutors of sheriff principal and sheriff affirmed