Dickson Minto W.S. & Ors v. Bonnier Media & Anor [2002] ScotCS 137 (15th May, 2002)

Dickson Minto W.S. & Ors v. Bonnier Media & Anor [2002] ScotCS 137 (15th May, 2002)

The petitioners failed to establish that they were likely to succeed in obtaining a permanent interdict against publication, as required by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, given the uncertainty about the article's content and the existence of alternative remedies. The balance of convenience also favoured allowing publication in light of the public interest in freedom of expression.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 137
Parties
Petitioners: Dickson Minto W. S. and Others; Respondents: Bonnier Media Limited and Another
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application for interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Conflict of Interest, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Interim Interdict Freedom of Expression Conflict of Interest Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Minto W. S. and Others

Petitioners

Bonnier Media Limited and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim interdict should be granted to restrain publication of an article alleging conflict of interest by solicitors
  2. 2 Whether petitioners are likely to succeed in establishing that publication should not be allowed under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to establish that they were likely to succeed in obtaining a permanent interdict against publication, as required by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, given the uncertainty about the article's content and the existence of alternative remedies. The balance of convenience also favoured allowing publication in light of the public interest in freedom of expression.

Court Disposition

Application for interim interdict refused