M'Donald v. M'Lachlan [1906] ScotLR 44_182 (14 December 1906)

M'Donald v. M'Lachlan [1906] ScotLR 44_182 (14 December 1906)

The statement complained of did not bear the innuendo alleged by the pursuer; it merely stated the shepherd did not inform the defender of the disease, which was consistent with no breach of duty. The words could not reasonably be interpreted as slanderous or as imputing incompetence or neglect. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 44_182
Parties
Pursuer: James M'Donald; Defender: Neil M'Lachlan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Qualified Privilege, Master and Servant, Innuendo, Malice
Tort Defamation Slander Qualified Privilege Master and Servant Innuendo Malice

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James M'Donald

Pursuer

Neil M'Lachlan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the defender to the Sheriff was slanderous of the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the statement was protected by absolute or qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the innuendo alleged by the pursuer was sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The statement complained of did not bear the innuendo alleged by the pursuer; it merely stated the shepherd did not inform the defender of the disease, which was consistent with no breach of duty. The words could not reasonably be interpreted as slanderous or as imputing incompetence or neglect. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled
  • Action dismissed