STUART CAMPBELL AGAINST KEZIA DUGDALE [2020] ScotCS CSIH_27 (27 May 2020)

STUART CAMPBELL AGAINST KEZIA DUGDALE [2020] ScotCS CSIH_27 (27 May 2020)

The article, though defamatory, constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, based on facts sufficiently indicated and widely known, and was a view that a reasonable person could reach; thus, the defence of fair comment succeeded and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSIH_27
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Stuart Campbell; Defender and Respondent: Kezia Dugdale
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Appeal Court to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor affirmed.
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Freedom of Expression, Damages for Defamation, Public Interest, Distinction Between Fact and Comment
Defamation Media Law Tort/delict Fair Comment Freedom of Expression Damages for Defamation Public Interest Distinction Between Fact and Comment

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

Parties

Stuart Campbell

Pursuer and Appellant

Kezia Dugdale

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Appeal Court to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's article constituted comment or assertion of fact for the purposes of the fair comment defence
  2. 2 Whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the comment
  3. 3 Whether the comment was fair

Ratio Decidendi

The article, though defamatory, constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, based on facts sufficiently indicated and widely known, and was a view that a reasonable person could reach; thus, the defence of fair comment succeeded and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor affirmed.

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 16 April 2019 affirmed.
  • Defender assoilzied (absolved) from the action.