Hayford v. Forrester-Paton [1927] ScotCS CSIH_2 (17 June 1927)

Hayford v. Forrester-Paton [1927] ScotCS CSIH_2 (17 June 1927)

The majority held that the occasion was privileged as the defender had a duty and interest to communicate the information to the committee, and the committee had an interest to receive it. The pursuer failed to aver relevant facts and circumstances from which malice could be inferred; mere negligence, error of judgment, or the seriousness of the defamatory statements did not amount to malice. The plea of veritas and refusal to apologise were not sufficient to infer malice. Therefore, the action was irrelevant and properly dismissed.

Citation
[1927] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer (plaintiff): Hayford; Defender (defendant): Forrester-Paton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 June 1927
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion Against Dismissal at First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal refused; action dismissed as irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Slander, Relevancy of Pleadings, Damages
Defamation Delict Tort Qualified Privilege Malice Slander Relevancy of Pleadings Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hayford

Pursuer (plaintiff)

Forrester-Paton

Defender (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion Against Dismissal at First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occasion of the communication was privileged
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer averred relevant facts and circumstances from which malice could be inferred to defeat privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the occasion was privileged as the defender had a duty and interest to communicate the information to the committee, and the committee had an interest to receive it. The pursuer failed to aver relevant facts and circumstances from which malice could be inferred; mere negligence, error of judgment, or the seriousness of the defamatory statements did not amount to malice. The plea of veritas and refusal to apologise were not sufficient to infer malice. Therefore, the action was irrelevant and properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; action dismissed as irrelevant.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed; action dismissed.