Agnew v. The British Legal Life Assurance Co. Ltd [1906] ScotLR 43_284 (24 January 1906)

Agnew v. The British Legal Life Assurance Co. Ltd [1906] ScotLR 43_284 (24 January 1906)

The words used by the superintendent, both in the letter and orally, were not slanderous in law; the language was abusive but did not impute criminal conduct or dishonesty in a legally actionable sense. Even if slanderous, the company would not be liable as the circumstances did not meet the strict requirements for vicarious liability for slander by an employee.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_284
Parties
Pursuer: Charles Agnew; Defender: The British Legal Life Assurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 January 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Outer House to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
appeal dismissed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Defamation, Vicarious Liability, Master and Servant, Scope of Employment
Tort Employment Law Company Law Slander Defamation Vicarious Liability Master and Servant Scope of Employment

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

Parties

Charles Agnew

Pursuer

The British Legal Life Assurance Company Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Outer House to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter and oral statements by the company's superintendent were slanderous and actionable
  2. 2 Whether the company is vicariously liable for alleged slander by its employee acting within the scope of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The words used by the superintendent, both in the letter and orally, were not slanderous in law; the language was abusive but did not impute criminal conduct or dishonesty in a legally actionable sense. Even if slanderous, the company would not be liable as the circumstances did not meet the strict requirements for vicarious liability for slander by an employee.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Reclaiming note refused
  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to