WILDCAT HAVEN ENTERPRISES CIC AGAINST ANDY WIGHTMAN [2020] ScotCS CSOH_30 (11 March 2020)

WILDCAT HAVEN ENTERPRISES CIC AGAINST ANDY WIGHTMAN [2020] ScotCS CSOH_30 (11 March 2020)

The court found that some statements conveyed defamatory meanings, but most were expressions of opinion or comment on matters of public interest, covered by the defence of fair comment. Where factual assertions were made, they were substantially true. The pursuer failed to establish that the defender was liable for third-party comments or that the publications caused actual financial loss. The defences of fair comment, veritas, and qualified privilege succeeded. The action was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_30
Parties
Pursuer: Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC; Defender: Andy Wightman
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Proof Before Answer
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamatory Statements, Fair Comment, Veritas, Qualified Privilege, Liability for Third Party Comments, Damages
Defamation Media Law Defamatory Statements Fair Comment Veritas Qualified Privilege Liability for Third Party Comments Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC

Pursuer

Andy Wightman

Defender

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements published by the defender were defamatory of the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the statements constituted fair comment or were substantially true
  3. 3 Whether the defender was liable for third-party comments on his website

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that some statements conveyed defamatory meanings, but most were expressions of opinion or comment on matters of public interest, covered by the defence of fair comment. Where factual assertions were made, they were substantially true. The pursuer failed to establish that the defender was liable for third-party comments or that the publications caused actual financial loss. The defences of fair comment, veritas, and qualified privilege succeeded. The action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed