Massie v McCaig & Ors [2013] ScotCS CSIH_14 (01 March 2013)

Massie v McCaig & Ors [2013] ScotCS CSIH_14 (01 March 2013)

The court held that although the statements and article were capable of bearing the innuendo of corrupt practices, the defence of fair comment applied as the facts were true, the matter was of public interest, and the comment was within the bounds of legitimate public controversy. The pursuer was not likely to succeed in establishing that publication should be prohibited, and the requirements of section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were not met. The interim interdict was therefore recalled.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_14
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Alan Massie; Defenders and Reclaimers: Callum McCaig & Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Interim Interdict
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interim interdict recalled.
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Freedom of Expression, Balance of Convenience
Defamation Human Rights Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Freedom of Expression Balance of Convenience

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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Massie

Pursuer and Respondent

Callum McCaig & Others

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements and article are capable of bearing a defamatory innuendo of improper or criminal conduct on the part of the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the context of the article and statement attracted qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the statements amounted to fair comment

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the statements and article were capable of bearing the innuendo of corrupt practices, the defence of fair comment applied as the facts were true, the matter was of public interest, and the comment was within the bounds of legitimate public controversy. The pursuer was not likely to succeed in establishing that publication should be prohibited, and the requirements of section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were not met. The interim interdict was therefore recalled.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interim interdict recalled.

Orders

  • The interim interdict granted on 19 December 2012 is recalled.