Finburgh v. Moss' Empires Ltd [1908] ScotCS CSIH_4 (09 June 1908)

Finburgh v. Moss' Empires Ltd [1908] ScotCS CSIH_4 (09 June 1908)

A corporation may be held liable for oral slander uttered by its servant if the servant was acting within the scope of employment and for the benefit of the corporation, and the occasion is privileged, requiring proof of malice. The pursuer's record disclosed sufficient facts to allow an issue to the jury on the wife's claim, but not on the husband's claim, which was too remote and irrelevant.

Citation
[1908] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Pursuer: Finburgh; Defender: Moss' Empires, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Delict (slander) / Appeal on Relevancy and Issues to Jury
Outcome
Issue allowed for wife's claim; husband's claim dismissed as irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Corporate Liability for Slander, Vicarious Liability, Privileged Occasion, Malice in Defamation, Scope of Employment
Tort Defamation Employment Law Corporate Liability for Slander Vicarious Liability Privileged Occasion Malice in Defamation Scope of Employment

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finburgh

Pursuer

Moss' Empires, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (slander) / Appeal on Relevancy and Issues to Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a corporation can be liable for oral slander uttered by its servant in the course of employment
  2. 2 Whether the facts disclose a privileged occasion requiring proof of malice
  3. 3 Whether the husband's claim for slander is relevant

Ratio Decidendi

A corporation may be held liable for oral slander uttered by its servant if the servant was acting within the scope of employment and for the benefit of the corporation, and the occasion is privileged, requiring proof of malice. The pursuer's record disclosed sufficient facts to allow an issue to the jury on the wife's claim, but not on the husband's claim, which was too remote and irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Issue allowed for wife's claim; husband's claim dismissed as irrelevant.

Orders

  • Vary the issue by inserting 'and maliciously' after 'calumniously' in the issues for the wife's claim.
  • Disallow the husband's issue and dismiss his action.