Cayzer v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSIH_55 (08 July 2015)

Cayzer v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSIH_55 (08 July 2015)

The article, when read as a whole by a reasonable reader, is capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the pursuer, namely that he acted improperly as executor by ignoring the testamentary wishes of the deceased for personal gain. The Lord Ordinary erred in law by placing undue emphasis on the statement that there was no breach of the law and failing to consider the overall tenor and impression of the article.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_55
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Nigel Cayzer; Defenders and Respondents: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Decision on Procedure Roll
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled in part; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Executor's Duties, Qualified Privilege, Bane and Antidote Principle, Moral Turpitude
Defamation Media Law Defamatory Meaning Executor's Duties Qualified Privilege Bane and Antidote Principle Moral Turpitude

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Cayzer

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Times Newspapers Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Defamation Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Decision on Procedure Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the respondents is capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in law by concluding the article could not bear such meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The article, when read as a whole by a reasonable reader, is capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the pursuer, namely that he acted improperly as executor by ignoring the testamentary wishes of the deceased for personal gain. The Lord Ordinary erred in law by placing undue emphasis on the statement that there was no breach of the law and failing to consider the overall tenor and impression of the article.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled in part; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in so far as it sustains the defender’s first plea-in-law and dismisses the action.
  • Allow a proof before answer on the defender’s first plea-in-law.