Crawford v. Dunlop [1900] ScotLR 37_767 (12 June 1900)

Crawford v. Dunlop [1900] ScotLR 37_767 (12 June 1900)

The statements in the letters are prima facie defamatory as innuendoed, and the pursuer is entitled to issues against both Adams and Dunlop. Adams is liable for instructing the statements; Dunlop is liable if malice is proved, having personally adopted the allegations. Privilege does not protect Adams, and is lost by Dunlop if malice is established.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_767
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Rennie Crawford; Defender: John K. Adams; Defender: R. Murray Dunlop
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Reparation (defamation/slander) / Interlocutory Appeal on Issues for Jury Trial
Outcome
Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's approval of issues; both actions to proceed to trial on adjusted issues.
Legal Topics
Slander, Privilege, Malice, Agency Liability, Innuendo, Damages
Tort Defamation Professional Liability Slander Privilege Malice Agency Liability Innuendo +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Rennie Crawford

Pursuer

John K. Adams

Defender

R. Murray Dunlop

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (defamation/slander) / Interlocutory Appeal on Issues for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the statements in the letters actionable as slander?
  2. 2 Is the agent personally liable for defamatory statements made on client instructions?
  3. 3 Does privilege attach to the communications?

Ratio Decidendi

The statements in the letters are prima facie defamatory as innuendoed, and the pursuer is entitled to issues against both Adams and Dunlop. Adams is liable for instructing the statements; Dunlop is liable if malice is proved, having personally adopted the allegations. Privilege does not protect Adams, and is lost by Dunlop if malice is established.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's approval of issues; both actions to proceed to trial on adjusted issues.

Orders

  • Issues allowed against Adams and Dunlop for jury trial.
  • Malice inserted in issue against Dunlop.