Stevenson v. Wilson [1903] ScotLR 40_286 (16 January 1903)

Stevenson v. Wilson [1903] ScotLR 40_286 (16 January 1903)

The statements made by the trustee in bankruptcy were privileged as they were pertinent to the issues in the prior action and made in the performance of his duty; the pursuer failed to aver relevant facts and circumstances from which malice could reasonably be inferred, and thus the action for damages for judicial slander was irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_286
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Daniel Macaulay Stevenson; Defender and Respondent: John Wilson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 January 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Judicial Slander, Privilege, Malice, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Reparation
Civil Law Delict Bankruptcy Judicial Slander Privilege Malice Trustee in Bankruptcy Reparation

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Macaulay Stevenson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

John Wilson

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by a trustee in bankruptcy in court pleadings are privileged against an action for slander unless malice is both averred and evidenced by facts and circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to infer malice and defeat privilege.

Ratio Decidendi

The statements made by the trustee in bankruptcy were privileged as they were pertinent to the issues in the prior action and made in the performance of his duty; the pursuer failed to aver relevant facts and circumstances from which malice could reasonably be inferred, and thus the action for damages for judicial slander was irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Defender assoilzied from conclusions of the summons.
  • Pursuer's reclaiming motion refused.