GEORGE COWAN v. MARK BENNETT [2012] ScotSC 102 (05 November 2012)

GEORGE COWAN v. MARK BENNETT [2012] ScotSC 102 (05 November 2012)

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's conduct at LBD meetings or the distribution of defaced business cards constituted actionable defamation. The context and manner of the defender's statements did not lead reasonable listeners to believe the pursuer was homosexual, and such an imputation is not generally defamatory. The pursuer did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defender was responsible for the defaced business cards. No pecuniary loss was proved.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 102
Parties
Pursuer: George Cowan; Defender: Mark Bennett
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, False Imputation, Damages, Burden of Proof
Defamation Tort False Imputation Damages Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Cowan

Pursuer

Mark Bennett

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements and conduct by the defender at LBD meetings constituted actionable defamation against the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the defender was responsible for defamatory statements written on business cards distributed at the roll van

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's conduct at LBD meetings or the distribution of defaced business cards constituted actionable defamation. The context and manner of the defender's statements did not lead reasonable listeners to believe the pursuer was homosexual, and such an imputation is not generally defamatory. The pursuer did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defender was responsible for the defaced business cards. No pecuniary loss was proved.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Pleas-in-law for pursuer repelled
  • Second plea-in-law for defender sustained