Brooks v Lind & Ors [2000] ScotCS 42 (16 February 2000)

Brooks v Lind & Ors [2000] ScotCS 42 (16 February 2000)

The article's allegation that the pursuer entered into a 'secret agreement' was not a fair or accurate report of council proceedings and was defamatory, as it implied deliberate deception by the pursuer. The defence of fair comment did not apply to this allegation. However, the allegation of 'malicious misuse of public money' was fair comment on a matter of public interest and not actionable.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 42
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: James Brooks; First Defender and Respondent: Gordon Lind; Second Defender and Respondent: Eileen McAuley; Third Defender and Respondent: Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Defamation Action / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders found jointly and severally liable for damages on the 'secret agreement' allegation; fair comment defence upheld on 'malicious misuse of public money' allegation.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Defamatory Meaning, Political Speech, Damages
Defamation Media Law Public Law Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Defamatory Meaning Political Speech 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Brooks

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Gordon Lind

First Defender and Respondent

Eileen McAuley

Second Defender and Respondent

Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited

Third Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Defamation Action / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether newspaper articles falsely alleging the pursuer entered into a 'secret agreement' and committed 'malicious misuse of public money' were defamatory and actionable; whether the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The article's allegation that the pursuer entered into a 'secret agreement' was not a fair or accurate report of council proceedings and was defamatory, as it implied deliberate deception by the pursuer. The defence of fair comment did not apply to this allegation. However, the allegation of 'malicious misuse of public money' was fair comment on a matter of public interest and not actionable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders found jointly and severally liable for damages on the 'secret agreement' allegation; fair comment defence upheld on 'malicious misuse of public money' allegation.

Orders

  • Recall Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
  • Sustain pursuer's first plea in law as it relates to the second conclusion.