GEORGE COWAN v. MARK BENNETT [2012] ScotSC 101 (05 November 2012)

GEORGE COWAN v. MARK BENNETT [2012] ScotSC 101 (05 November 2012)

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's conduct at LBD meetings or the distribution of defaced business cards amounted to actionable defamation. The context and manner of the defender's remarks made it clear to reasonable listeners that they were not serious imputations of homosexuality. There was no evidence that the pursuer's reputation was lowered on the basis of such an imputation. The pursuer also failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defender was responsible for the defaced business cards. Accordingly, the pursuer's case fails.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 101
Parties
Pursuer: George Cowan; Defender: Mark Bennett
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's case dismissed; defender's plea sustained.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Imputation of Homosexuality, Publication of Defamatory Material, Burden of Proof, Damages for Injury to Feelings
Defamation Tort Imputation of Homosexuality Publication of Defamatory Material Burden of Proof Damages for Injury to Feelings

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

Parties

George Cowan

Pursuer

Mark Bennett

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's conduct and statements at LBD meetings constituted actionable defamation against the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the defender was responsible for the distribution of defaced business cards containing abusive statements about the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether an imputation of homosexuality is defamatory in contemporary society

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's conduct at LBD meetings or the distribution of defaced business cards amounted to actionable defamation. The context and manner of the defender's remarks made it clear to reasonable listeners that they were not serious imputations of homosexuality. There was no evidence that the pursuer's reputation was lowered on the basis of such an imputation. The pursuer also failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defender was responsible for the defaced business cards. Accordingly, the pursuer's case fails.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's case dismissed; defender's plea sustained.

Orders

  • Repels the pleas-in-law for the pursuer.
  • Sustains the second plea-in-law for the defender.