Glasgow Corporation v. James Hedderwick & Sons, Ltd [1918] ScotLR 553 (14 May 1918)

Glasgow Corporation v. James Hedderwick & Sons, Ltd [1918] ScotLR 553 (14 May 1918)

The publication of the article, though strongly worded, did not amount to contempt of court as there were no proceedings pending at the time, the article did not misstate facts, and it constituted fair comment on a matter of public importance. The article was not calculated to interfere with the administration of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 553
Parties
Respondent: Glasgow Corporation; Compearer (publisher): James Hedderwick & Sons, Limited; Pursuer (original Action): John Kemp junior
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 1918
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court/administration of Justice (single Bills) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Alleged Contempt by Newspaper Article During Pendency of Appeal Period
Outcome
No action taken; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Comment on Pending Judicial Proceedings, Limits of Fair Comment by Press, Criticism of Judicial Decisions, Sub Judice Rule
Contempt of Court Administration of Justice Media Law Comment on Pending Judicial Proceedings Limits of Fair Comment by Press Criticism of Judicial Decisions Sub Judice Rule

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glasgow Corporation

Respondent

James Hedderwick & Sons, Limited

Compearer (publisher)

John Kemp junior

Pursuer (original Action)

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court/administration of Justice (single Bills) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Alleged Contempt by Newspaper Article During Pendency of Appeal Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of a newspaper article criticizing a judicial decision while appeal is still possible constitutes contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the article in question prejudiced the administration of justice or was improper comment

Ratio Decidendi

The publication of the article, though strongly worded, did not amount to contempt of court as there were no proceedings pending at the time, the article did not misstate facts, and it constituted fair comment on a matter of public importance. The article was not calculated to interfere with the administration of justice or disrespect the court.

Court Disposition

No action taken; application dismissed

Orders

  • Court found it unnecessary to take any action regarding the article.
  • Respondents (Glasgow Corporation) found liable to compearers (James Hedderwick & Sons, Ltd) in expenses of their compearance.