Bruce v. A. M. Ross & Co. [1901] ScotLR 39_130 (22 November 1901)

Bruce v. A. M. Ross & Co. [1901] ScotLR 39_130 (22 November 1901)

The action was irrelevant because the article's statements of fact were substantially admitted as true, and the expressions of opinion regarding those facts, even if strongly worded, were not actionable as slander. The article did not impute personal cruelty to the pursuer but criticized the rigid adherence to hospital rules. Expressions of opinion on facts truly stated, especially regarding public officials, are not actionable in defamation.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_130
Parties
Pursuer: William Bruce, M.D., LL.D.; Defender: A. M. Ross & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Fair Comment, Privilege, Public Interest, Reparation
Defamation Media Law Tort Slander Fair Comment Privilege Public Interest Reparation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bruce, M.D., LL.D.

Pursuer

A. M. Ross & Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the newspaper article constituted actionable slander against the pursuer by imputing cruelty in his professional capacity.
  2. 2 Whether expressions of opinion based on facts truly stated are actionable in defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The action was irrelevant because the article's statements of fact were substantially admitted as true, and the expressions of opinion regarding those facts, even if strongly worded, were not actionable as slander. The article did not impute personal cruelty to the pursuer but criticized the rigid adherence to hospital rules. Expressions of opinion on facts truly stated, especially regarding public officials, are not actionable in defamation.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • Action dismissed.