Suzor v. Buckingham [1914] ScotLR 309 (03 February 1914)

Suzor v. Buckingham [1914] ScotLR 309 (03 February 1914)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle a jury to infer malice and displace any privilege that might attach to the occasion of the statements made on 5th July 1913. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow the second issue to go to proof.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 309
Parties
Pursuer: Samuel Suzor; Defender: Sydney Buckingham
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 1914
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy and Privilege
Outcome
Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to; second issue allowed to proof.
Legal Topics
Slander, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Master and Servant, Reparation
Tort Employment Law Slander Qualified Privilege Malice Master and Servant Reparation

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Suzor

Pursuer

Sydney Buckingham

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy and Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defender on 5th July 1913 were made on a privileged occasion
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are relevant to infer malice and displace privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle a jury to infer malice and displace any privilege that might attach to the occasion of the statements made on 5th July 1913. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow the second issue to go to proof.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to; second issue allowed to proof.

Orders

  • First issue disallowed; second issue (regarding 5th July 1913 statement) allowed to go to proof.