Drysdale v. Earl of Rosebery [1909] ScotLR 795 (01 June 1909)

Drysdale v. Earl of Rosebery [1909] ScotLR 795 (01 June 1909)

The defender's actions were within his legal rights and did not reasonably bear the innuendo of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. The acts complained of were not capable of supporting a defamatory meaning, and the defender cannot be held responsible for unwarranted inferences drawn by outsiders.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 795
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Learmont Drysdale; Defender: Right Honourable the Earl of Rosebery
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
appeal dismissed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Slander by Actions, Innuendo, Relevancy
Tort Defamation Slander Slander by Actions Innuendo Relevancy

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Learmont Drysdale

Pursuer

Right Honourable the Earl of Rosebery

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's actions and communications constituted actionable slander by actions alone
  2. 2 Whether the innuendo of dishonesty and untrustworthiness could reasonably be drawn from the defender's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's actions were within his legal rights and did not reasonably bear the innuendo of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. The acts complained of were not capable of supporting a defamatory meaning, and the defender cannot be held responsible for unwarranted inferences drawn by outsiders.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's decision and assoilzied the defender from the conclusions of the action