Barratt International Resorts Ltd V. Barratt Owner's Group (Revised 1) [2002] ScotCS 318 (20 December 2002)

Barratt International Resorts Ltd V. Barratt Owner's Group (Revised 1) [2002] ScotCS 318 (20 December 2002)

The pursuers failed to aver sufficient facts and circumstances from which malice could be inferred in the defenders' communications. The statements complained of, even if untrue, were not adequately specified as malicious or as intended to injure, and many were contextual to an ongoing dispute. The pleadings did not meet the legal threshold for verbal injury or inducement to breach contract, and the action was irrelevant and lacking in specification.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 318
Parties
Pursuer: Barratt International Resorts Limited; First Defender: Barratt Owners' Group; Second Defender: Second Defender (A Smith, Q.C.); Fourth and Fifth Defenders: Fourth and Fifth Defenders (Dunlop, Brown)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/defamation/verbal Injury) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings)
Outcome
Action dismissed (pleadings irrelevant and lacking specification)
Legal Topics
Verbal Injury, Malicious Falsehood, Freedom of Expression, Inducement to Breach Contract, Specification of Pleadings
Delict Defamation Contract Verbal Injury Malicious Falsehood Freedom of Expression Inducement to Breach Contract Specification of Pleadings

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barratt International Resorts Limited

Pursuer

Barratt Owners' Group

First Defender

Second Defender (A Smith, Q.C.)

Second Defender

Fourth and Fifth Defenders (Dunlop, Brown)

Fourth and Fifth Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/defamation/verbal Injury) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments are sufficient to support an action for verbal injury (malicious falsehood)
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings adequately specify malice and falsehood
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient averment of inducement to breach contract

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to aver sufficient facts and circumstances from which malice could be inferred in the defenders' communications. The statements complained of, even if untrue, were not adequately specified as malicious or as intended to injure, and many were contextual to an ongoing dispute. The pleadings did not meet the legal threshold for verbal injury or inducement to breach contract, and the action was irrelevant and lacking in specification.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (pleadings irrelevant and lacking specification)

Orders

  • Action dismissed against the defenders
  • No inquiry to proof allowed