Farrell v. Boyd [1907] ScotLR 870 (11 July 1907)

The pursuer failed to aver relevant facts from which malice could be inferred to overcome the privilege protecting the defender's statements made in the course of his official duty. The police bye-law requiring Chief-Constable's consent does not bar the action but is a matter for internal discipline, not affecting title to sue.

Citation: [1907] ScotLR 870
Parties: Pursuer: Francis Farrell; Defender: John Adam Boyd
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 11 July 1907
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome: appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics: Reparation, Slander, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Police Employment Bye Laws, Medical Negligence

Tort Employment Law Reparation Slander Qualified Privilege Malice Police Employment Bye Laws Medical Negligence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Francis Farrell

Pursuer

John Adam Boyd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

1 Whether a police constable can sue for slander without Chief-Constable's consent under police bye-law
2 Whether statements made by a police surgeon in the course of duty are protected by qualified privilege
3 Whether facts averred are sufficient to infer malice and defeat privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

Reclaiming note refused
Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to