RAH v MH [2013] ScotCS CSIH_82 (18 October 2013)

RAH v MH [2013] ScotCS CSIH_82 (18 October 2013)

The defender failed to prove that the pursuer acted maliciously or lied deliberately; the Lord Ordinary was entitled to accept the pursuer's evidence and award damages for defamation.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_82
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: RAH; Defender and Reclaimer: MH
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused except as to correction of interest rate on damages; award of damages upheld.
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Veritas Defence, Damages, Interdict
Defamation Civil Procedure Malicious Falsehood Veritas Defence Damages Interdict

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

Parties

RAH

Pursuer and Respondent

MH

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender proved the truth (veritas) of the defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer acted maliciously in including erroneous information in a court report
  3. 3 Appropriateness of damages awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to prove that the pursuer acted maliciously or lied deliberately; the Lord Ordinary was entitled to accept the pursuer's evidence and award damages for defamation.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused except as to correction of interest rate on damages; award of damages upheld.

Orders

  • Interest on £10,000 awarded at four percent per annum
  • Perpetual interdict against defender