Gardner v. Robertson [1920] ScotLR 124 (20 November 1920)

Gardner v. Robertson [1920] ScotLR 124 (20 November 1920)

The words complained of are not in themselves actionable as slander, and the innuendo pleaded by the pursuer is merely a paraphrase and does not import actionable liability. The pursuer failed to state a relevant innuendo or defamatory meaning, and the context does not support a slanderous interpretation. The action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 124
Parties
Pursuer: James Gardner; Defender: Robert Robertson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 November 1920
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Slander / Appeal/reclaiming Motion Before Inner House
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Slander, Innuendo, Privilege, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Defamation Slander Innuendo Privilege Relevancy of Pleadings

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

Parties

James Gardner

Pursuer

Robert Robertson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages for Slander / Appeal/reclaiming Motion Before Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the words complained of actionable as slander?
  2. 2 Is the innuendo pleaded by the pursuer relevant and sufficient to support the action?
  3. 3 Does the context render the statement privileged or innocent?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are not in themselves actionable as slander, and the innuendo pleaded by the pursuer is merely a paraphrase and does not import actionable liability. The pursuer failed to state a relevant innuendo or defamatory meaning, and the context does not support a slanderous interpretation. The action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • interlocutor recalled
  • issue disallowed