R. v. S [1913] ScotLR 161 (18 December 1913)

R. v. S [1913] ScotLR 161 (18 December 1913)

A prior letter of apology admitting falsity and undertaking not to repeat slanderous statements does not, in itself, bar the defender from pleading and proving veritas (truth) as a defence in a subsequent action for repetition of the slander, unless the pursuer can show a real change of position to her prejudice. The plea of veritas remains available, and the counter issue should be allowed.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 161
Parties
Pursuer: Miss M. J. R.; Defender: Mrs H. M. or S.; Defender: J. F. S.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 December 1913
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Refusal of Counter Issue
Outcome
Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; counter issue of veritas allowed as amended.
Legal Topics
Slander, Defamation, Personal Bar (estoppel), Veritas (truth), Apology and Admission, Reparation
Tort Contract Evidence Slander Defamation Personal Bar (estoppel) Veritas (truth) Apology and Admission +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss M. J. R.

Pursuer

Mrs H. M. or S.

Defender

J. F. S.

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Refusal of Counter Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defender in a slander action is barred from pleading veritas (truth) by a prior letter of apology admitting falsity and undertaking not to repeat the statements.
  2. 2 Whether the plea of veritas is a complete defence to slander despite a prior admission of falsity and apology.

Ratio Decidendi

A prior letter of apology admitting falsity and undertaking not to repeat slanderous statements does not, in itself, bar the defender from pleading and proving veritas (truth) as a defence in a subsequent action for repetition of the slander, unless the pursuer can show a real change of position to her prejudice. The plea of veritas remains available, and the counter issue should be allowed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; counter issue of veritas allowed as amended.

Orders

  • Counter issue of veritas to be allowed in terms of defender's averments.
  • Case remitted for further procedure on amended issues.