Rae v. Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1923] ScotLR 98 (30 November 1923)

Rae v. Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1923] ScotLR 98 (30 November 1923)

The statements made by the defenders' servants did not, in the circumstances, reasonably impute criminal conduct and were not slanderous. The occasions were privileged, and there were no relevant averments of malice or want of probable cause sufficient to justify issues of slander or malicious prosecution. The defenders had at least probable cause for their actions under the Children Act 1908, given the pursuer's admitted failure to support the child.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 98
Parties
Pursuer: William Rae; Defender: Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 November 1923
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Slander and Malicious Prosecution) / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Dismissal
Outcome
Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Slander, Malicious Prosecution, Privilege, Children Act 1908, Reparation, Probable Cause, Malice
Tort Defamation Criminal Law Child Law Slander Malicious Prosecution Privilege Children Act 1908 +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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Rae

Pursuer

Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Slander and Malicious Prosecution) / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements by the defenders' servants constituted actionable slander by imputing criminal neglect
  2. 2 Whether the occasions of the statements and complaint to Procurator-Fiscal were privileged
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient averment of malice and want of probable cause to justify issues of slander and malicious prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The statements made by the defenders' servants did not, in the circumstances, reasonably impute criminal conduct and were not slanderous. The occasions were privileged, and there were no relevant averments of malice or want of probable cause sufficient to justify issues of slander or malicious prosecution. The defenders had at least probable cause for their actions under the Children Act 1908, given the pursuer's admitted failure to support the child.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • All three issues proposed by the pursuer disallowed.
  • No issue of slander or malicious prosecution to proceed.