Campbell and Others v. Scottish Educational News Co., Ltd [1906] ScotLR 43_487 (15 March 1906)

Campbell and Others v. Scottish Educational News Co., Ltd [1906] ScotLR 43_487 (15 March 1906)

The jury's verdict that the article did not constitute libel was not so flagrantly wrong as to warrant interference; the article could be interpreted as fair criticism of public conduct, and the Court should not substitute its view for the jury's. Expenses were awarded to the defenders as the verdict on the first issue exhausted the case, and no modification was warranted for the unadjudicated counter issue.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_487
Parties
Pursuer: John Campbell, Donald Blair, Peter M'Intyre; Defender: Scottish Educational News Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 March 1906
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Application for New Trial and Expenses Following Jury Verdict
Outcome
application for new trial refused; rule discharged; verdict applied
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Jury Trial, Expenses, Innocuous Criticism Vs Defamatory Statements
Defamation Reparation Civil Procedure Slander Libel Jury Trial Expenses Innocuous Criticism Vs Defamatory Statements

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

Parties

John Campbell, Donald Blair, Peter M'Intyre

Pursuer

Scottish Educational News Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Application for New Trial and Expenses Following Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published constituted slander against the pursuers
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdict was contrary to evidence and warranted a new trial
  3. 3 Whether expenses should be modified due to the counter issue not being adjudicated

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdict that the article did not constitute libel was not so flagrantly wrong as to warrant interference; the article could be interpreted as fair criticism of public conduct, and the Court should not substitute its view for the jury's. Expenses were awarded to the defenders as the verdict on the first issue exhausted the case, and no modification was warranted for the unadjudicated counter issue.

Court Disposition

application for new trial refused; rule discharged; verdict applied

Orders

  • defenders found entitled to expenses without modification