Mills v. Kelvin and James White, Ltd [1913] ScotLR 331 (17 January 1913)

Mills v. Kelvin and James White, Ltd [1913] ScotLR 331 (17 January 1913)

The pursuer failed to prove want of probable cause or malice on the part of the defenders in lodging criminal complaints or issuing the circular. The defenders acted as reasonable persons would have in the circumstances, based on the information available to them. The explanation advanced by the pursuer was inherently implausible and unsupported by credible evidence. The jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence, and judgment must be entered for the defenders.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 331
Parties
Pursuer: Robert K. Mills; Defenders: Kelvin and James White, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 January 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander/malicious Prosecution) / Appeal From Jury Verdict; Motion to Set Aside Verdict and Enter Judgment for Defenders
Outcome
verdict for defenders; jury verdict for pursuer set aside
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Slander, Privilege, Malice, Want of Probable Cause, Jury Verdicts, Setting Aside Verdicts, Damages
Tort Defamation Criminal Law (interface With Civil) Employment Law Malicious Prosecution Slander Privilege Malice +4 more

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

Parties

Robert K. Mills

Pursuer

Kelvin and James White, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander/malicious Prosecution) / Appeal From Jury Verdict; Motion to Set Aside Verdict and Enter Judgment for Defenders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders maliciously and without probable cause lodged criminal complaints against the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders maliciously and without probable cause issued a defamatory circular about the pursuer.
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdict for the pursuer was contrary to the evidence and should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove want of probable cause or malice on the part of the defenders in lodging criminal complaints or issuing the circular. The defenders acted as reasonable persons would have in the circumstances, based on the information available to them. The explanation advanced by the pursuer was inherently implausible and unsupported by credible evidence. The jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence, and judgment must be entered for the defenders.

Court Disposition

verdict for defenders; jury verdict for pursuer set aside

Orders

  • Jury's verdict for pursuer set aside as contrary to evidence.
  • Judgment entered for defenders (Kelvin and James White, Limited).