Nicol v. Caledonian Newpapers Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 106 (11th April, 2002)

Nicol v. Caledonian Newpapers Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 106 (11th April, 2002)

The Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 does not confer a civil right of action for damages on litigants nor does it remove the defence of qualified privilege from a newspaper publisher in a defamation action for breach of the Act. The Act is regulatory, providing only criminal sanctions, and does not innovate upon the common law of defamation. The journalist (second defender) is not liable under the Act as he did not 'print or publish' nor 'cause or procure' publication. The question of malice remains a matter for proof. Accordingly, the defenders are not deprived of the defence of qualified privilege solely by breach of the Act.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 106
Parties
Pursuer: Allan Mackenzie Nicol; First Defender: Caledonian Newspapers Limited; Second Defender: Allan Caldwell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; no averments excluded; pleas-in-law not repelled at this stage.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Judicial Proceedings (regulation of Reports) Act 1926, Freedom of Expression, Malice, Common Law Defamation, Civil Remedies, European Convention on Human Rights
Defamation Media Law Statutory Interpretation Human Rights Qualified Privilege Judicial Proceedings (regulation of Reports) Act 1926 Freedom of Expression Malice +3 more

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Mackenzie Nicol

Pursuer

Caledonian Newspapers Limited

First Defender

Allan Caldwell

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does breach of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 remove the defence of qualified privilege in defamation?
  2. 2 Does the 1926 Act confer a civil right of action for damages on litigants?
  3. 3 Is a journalist (as author) liable under the 1926 Act or deprived of qualified privilege?

Ratio Decidendi

The Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 does not confer a civil right of action for damages on litigants nor does it remove the defence of qualified privilege from a newspaper publisher in a defamation action for breach of the Act. The Act is regulatory, providing only criminal sanctions, and does not innovate upon the common law of defamation. The journalist (second defender) is not liable under the Act as he did not 'print or publish' nor 'cause or procure' publication. The question of malice remains a matter for proof. Accordingly, the defenders are not deprived of the defence of qualified privilege solely by breach of the Act.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; no averments excluded; pleas-in-law not repelled at this stage.

Orders

  • Proof before answer on the whole pleadings as they stand.
  • No averments excluded from probation.