Thomson & Anor v Sheriff Kenneth Ross & Ors [2000] ScotCS 264 (25 October 2000)

Thomson & Anor v Sheriff Kenneth Ross & Ors [2000] ScotCS 264 (25 October 2000)

The court held that the pursuers have a stateable case against the first and second defenders regarding qualified privilege and malice, and that there is ground for reconsideration of the law on absolute privilege as it applies to the fourth to ninth defenders. The outstanding expenses are connected to the present action, and the general principle that impecunious litigants should be able to present a stateable case without caution is not displaced by the defenders' arguments.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 264
Parties
Pursuers and Reclaimers: Gordon Coutts Thomson and Another; First Defender and Respondent: Sheriff Kenneth Ross; Second Defenders and Respondents: Law Society of Scotland; Fourth to Ninth Defenders and Respondents: Members of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (Fourth to Ninth Defenders)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Motion for Caution in Appeal
Outcome
Motions for caution refused; appeal allowed to proceed without caution.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Malice, Caution for Expenses, Vicarious Liability
Defamation Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege Malice Caution for Expenses Vicarious Liability

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

Parties

Gordon Coutts Thomson and Another

Pursuers and Reclaimers

Sheriff Kenneth Ross

First Defender and Respondent

Law Society of Scotland

Second Defenders and Respondents

Members of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (Fourth to Ninth Defenders)

Fourth to Ninth Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Motion for Caution in Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' action for defamation and damages against the defenders is stateable in light of qualified and absolute privilege.
  2. 2 Whether caution for expenses should be ordered against the pursuers due to their impecuniosity and outstanding liabilities.
  3. 3 Whether a joint and several decree is competent given the differing bases of liability against the defenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuers have a stateable case against the first and second defenders regarding qualified privilege and malice, and that there is ground for reconsideration of the law on absolute privilege as it applies to the fourth to ninth defenders. The outstanding expenses are connected to the present action, and the general principle that impecunious litigants should be able to present a stateable case without caution is not displaced by the defenders' arguments.

Court Disposition

Motions for caution refused; appeal allowed to proceed without caution.

Orders

  • No order for caution for expenses against the pursuers.
  • Appeal to proceed on the merits.