Curran v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_86 (20 December 2011)

Curran v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_86 (20 December 2011)

The article was not defamatory as it fell within the latitude permitted for political comment; even if it were, qualified privilege applied as a fair retort to public criticism, and malice on the part of Mr Sheridan would not deprive the defenders of that privilege.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_86
Parties
Pursuer: Pursuer (not named in extract); Defender: The Scottish Daily Record or The Sunday Mail (defenders); Third Party (non Litigant, Relevant to Facts): Mr Sheridan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Full Court Judgment on Reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed; question of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Defamatory Meaning, Malice, Fair Comment, Public Interest, Political Speech
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Defamatory Meaning Malice Fair Comment Public Interest +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pursuer (not named in extract)

Pursuer

The Scottish Daily Record or The Sunday Mail (defenders)

Defender

Mr Sheridan

Third Party (non Litigant, Relevant to Facts)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Full Court Judgment on Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article had a defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether qualified privilege applied to the publication as a fair retort
  3. 3 Whether malice on the part of Mr Sheridan deprived the defenders of qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The article was not defamatory as it fell within the latitude permitted for political comment; even if it were, qualified privilege applied as a fair retort to public criticism, and malice on the part of Mr Sheridan would not deprive the defenders of that privilege.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed; question of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion
  • Adherence to interlocutor of Lord Ordinary dismissing the action