Sinclair or Fraser v. Fraser [2010] ScotSC 17 (17 June 2010)

Sinclair or Fraser v. Fraser [2010] ScotSC 17 (17 June 2010)

The court found that the defender made actionable defamatory statements about the pursuer, that the statements were untrue, and that the defender failed to establish the defence of veritas. The court also found that the statements were not protected by qualified privilege as they were made with animosity and malice, particularly in the context of the workplace dispute and the defender's reaction to not being appointed to the supervisory role. The pursuer was entitled to damages for loss, injury, and damage to reputation.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 17
Parties
Pursuer: Karen Sinclair or Fraser; Defender: Catherine Fraser
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Decree for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Veritas (truth), Malice, Employment Reputation
Tort Employment Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Veritas (truth) Malice Employment Reputation

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

Parties

Karen Sinclair or Fraser

Pursuer

Catherine Fraser

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender made defamatory statements about the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the statements were true (veritas)
  3. 3 Whether the statements were protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defender made actionable defamatory statements about the pursuer, that the statements were untrue, and that the defender failed to establish the defence of veritas. The court also found that the statements were not protected by qualified privilege as they were made with animosity and malice, particularly in the context of the workplace dispute and the defender's reaction to not being appointed to the supervisory role. The pursuer was entitled to damages for loss, injury, and damage to reputation.

Court Disposition

Decree for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £5,000 sterling with interest at 8% per annum from 23 April 2009 until payment.
  • Defender found liable in expenses of the action as taxed.