Couper v. Lord Balfour of Burleigh [1913] ScotLR 320 (15 January 1913)

Couper v. Lord Balfour of Burleigh [1913] ScotLR 320 (15 January 1913)

The pursuer's averments, taken at their highest, did not disclose any issuable matter on the essential element of malice. The defender's communications were made in the bona fide discharge of a public duty to the proper authorities, and the facts alleged—use of strong language, repetition, lack of inquiry, and refusal to apologise—were insufficient in law to infer malice and defeat privilege. The action was therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 320
Parties
Pursuer: Elizabeth Birnie Couper; Defender: Alexander Hugh Bruce, Baron Balfour of Burleigh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Public Duty, Repetition of Defamatory Statements, Refusal to Apologise
Tort Defamation Privilege Slander Qualified Privilege Malice Public Duty Repetition of Defamatory Statements +1 more

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

Parties

Elizabeth Birnie Couper

Pursuer

Alexander Hugh Bruce, Baron Balfour of Burleigh

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to infer malice and defeat privilege in an action for slander against a person communicating allegations to public authorities.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to withdraw or apologise for defamatory statements, repetition of allegations, or failure to inquire, can amount to malice sufficient to allow the case to go to a jury.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, taken at their highest, did not disclose any issuable matter on the essential element of malice. The defender's communications were made in the bona fide discharge of a public duty to the proper authorities, and the facts alleged—use of strong language, repetition, lack of inquiry, and refusal to apologise—were insufficient in law to infer malice and defeat privilege. The action was therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled
  • Defender's first plea in law sustained