Angiolini v Green [2013] ScotCS CSOH_196 (19 December 2013)

Angiolini v Green [2013] ScotCS CSOH_196 (19 December 2013)

The defender's statements were defamatory of the pursuer; no relevant or sufficiently specific defence of veritas or fair comment was pled; the absence of legal aid and self-representation did not render the hearing unfair or breach Article 6 ECHR; granting interdict in the terms sought does not breach Article 10 ECHR; the pursuer is entitled to interdict as concluded for.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_196
Parties
Pursuer: The Right Honourable Dame Elish Angiolini QC; Defender: George Robert Green
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation/interdict / Procedure Roll Debate and Motion for Summary Decree
Outcome
Interdict granted as concluded for in conclusion 4; other conclusions dismissed; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Summary Decree, Article 6 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Fair Comment, Veritas (truth), Party Litigant, Legal Aid
Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Interdict Summary Decree Article 6 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Fair Comment +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Right Honourable Dame Elish Angiolini QC

Pursuer

George Robert Green

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation/interdict / Procedure Roll Debate and Motion for Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's statements were defamatory of the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether any relevant and sufficiently specific defence (veritas or fair comment) was pled
  3. 3 Whether the absence of legal aid and self-representation rendered the hearing unfair under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's statements were defamatory of the pursuer; no relevant or sufficiently specific defence of veritas or fair comment was pled; the absence of legal aid and self-representation did not render the hearing unfair or breach Article 6 ECHR; granting interdict in the terms sought does not breach Article 10 ECHR; the pursuer is entitled to interdict as concluded for.

Court Disposition

Interdict granted as concluded for in conclusion 4; other conclusions dismissed; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Interdict granted against the defender from defaming the pursuer as specified in conclusion 4 of the summons.
  • Other conclusions (including non-harassment order and additional interdicts) dismissed.