M'Ewan v. Watson [1904] ScotLR 42_213 (18 November 1904)

M'Ewan v. Watson [1904] ScotLR 42_213 (18 November 1904)

Statements made by a witness in court, pertinent to the case, are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for an action in damages for defamation or breach of confidentiality. Disclosure of confidential information by a medical professional outside court may be actionable as slander if the statements are defamatory and not privileged, but the pursuer must specify the statements and cannot claim double damages for the same wrong. In this case, only the issue of slander (not breach of confidentiality) was allowed to proceed to trial.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 42_213
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Jessie Prentice Jones or M'Ewan; Defender/reclaimer: Sir Patrick Heron Watson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 November 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) on Issues to Be Sent to Jury
Outcome
First issue (breach of confidentiality) disallowed; only the issue of slander (defamation) allowed to proceed to trial; no expenses awarded to either party since 12th July last.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidentiality, Slander/defamation, Absolute Privilege of Witnesses, Medical Professional Duty, Privilege in Judicial Proceedings
Tort Medical Law Defamation Breach of Confidentiality Slander/defamation Absolute Privilege of Witnesses Medical Professional Duty Privilege in Judicial Proceedings

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jessie Prentice Jones or M'Ewan

Pursuer/respondent

Sir Patrick Heron Watson

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) on Issues to Be Sent to Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by a medical professional in the witness-box are absolutely privileged against actions for defamation or breach of confidentiality.
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of confidential medical information to a patient's husband and his legal advisers, outside court, is actionable as breach of confidentiality or slander.
  3. 3 Whether the innuendo in the defender's statements amounted to actionable slander.

Ratio Decidendi

Statements made by a witness in court, pertinent to the case, are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for an action in damages for defamation or breach of confidentiality. Disclosure of confidential information by a medical professional outside court may be actionable as slander if the statements are defamatory and not privileged, but the pursuer must specify the statements and cannot claim double damages for the same wrong. In this case, only the issue of slander (not breach of confidentiality) was allowed to proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

First issue (breach of confidentiality) disallowed; only the issue of slander (defamation) allowed to proceed to trial; no expenses awarded to either party since 12th July last.

Orders

  • Disallow the first issue proposed for the pursuer (breach of confidentiality).
  • Approve of the remaining issue as altered and adjusted (slander/defamation) and appoint same to be the issue for the trial of the cause.