Dinnie v. Hengler [1909] ScotLR 1 (15 October 1909)

Dinnie v. Hengler [1909] ScotLR 1 (15 October 1909)

The pursuer's averments that the defender made a serious accusation of dishonesty recklessly and without inquiry, combined with circumstances of changed attitude and possible animus, were sufficient to infer malice and entitle the pursuer to a jury issue despite the privileged occasion.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 1
Parties
Pursuer: Evie Dinnie; Defender: Albert Hengler
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Against Allowance of Issues for Jury Trial
Outcome
appeal dismissed; issues allowed to go to jury
Legal Topics
Slander, Malice, Qualified Privilege, Master and Servant, Reparation
Tort Employment Law Slander Malice Qualified Privilege Master and Servant 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evie Dinnie

Pursuer

Albert Hengler

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Against Allowance of Issues for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to infer malice and defeat privilege in a slander action between employer and employee
  2. 2 Whether reckless and uninquired accusation can amount to malice

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments that the defender made a serious accusation of dishonesty recklessly and without inquiry, combined with circumstances of changed attitude and possible animus, were sufficient to infer malice and entitle the pursuer to a jury issue despite the privileged occasion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; issues allowed to go to jury

Orders

  • Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's allowance of issues for jury trial