Macdonald v. M'Coll [1901] ScotLR 38_781 (18 July 1901)

Macdonald v. M'Coll [1901] ScotLR 38_781 (18 July 1901)

The expression 'no good' was capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo alleged; the occasion was privileged, requiring relevant averment of malice; the unexplained discrepancy between the favourable certificate and the subsequent negative reference constituted a special circumstance sufficient to infer malice and warranted sending the case to a jury.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_781
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Joseph Macdonald; Defender/respondent: William M'Coll
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 July 1901
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Slander / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
appeal sustained
Legal Topics
Slander, Privilege, Malice, Master and Servant, Character Reference
Defamation Employment Law Reparation Slander Privilege Malice Master and Servant Character Reference

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Macdonald

Pursuer/appellant

William M'Coll

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages for Slander / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement 'no good' in the post-card was defamatory and capable of bearing the innuendo alleged
  2. 2 Whether the occasion was privileged and if malice was relevantly averred
  3. 3 Whether the discrepancy between the certificate and subsequent character reference infers malice

Ratio Decidendi

The expression 'no good' was capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo alleged; the occasion was privileged, requiring relevant averment of malice; the unexplained discrepancy between the favourable certificate and the subsequent negative reference constituted a special circumstance sufficient to infer malice and warranted sending the case to a jury.

Court Disposition

appeal sustained

Orders

  • interlocutors of the Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff recalled
  • first plea-in-law for the defender repelled